Imagine you were forced to bet $10,000 on it. You don't have to tell me what you would bet, but I find that if I picture high stakes I get more honest with myself. Personally, with $10,000 on the line I strongly bet against the income tax being repealed
A 50% tax hike on everything you buy is pretty new....Our run of the mill sociopaths were never that stupid. (I realize that it won't actually be 50%, but rather the higher of 50% or the difference between the foreign good and the cheapest domestic alternative, but still)
Every country tariffs us heavily, yet we take their products with either no tariffs at all, or very low tariffs. This sets up very big trade disparities, making it so our businesses can not operate in America, and all move overseas. From what I see, Trump just wants to even this out a bit, and has to negotiate for America.
Other countries don't tariff the US - they tariff themselves. Tariffs are self sanctions. The economics here do not require a level playing field. Freer economies simply outperform less free ones, fundamentally because freedom allows each person to use their specific knowledge to calculate the best answer for them at every decision point.
@kusho50 that's not how tariffs work though. You're speaking of them as if evening out the effects is a good thing, and yet if two countries both have 50% tariffs on each other's products then all that does is make them both poorer than they otherwise could be if tariffs were lower, even on one side.
The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA company that buys the tariffed item at the USA post of entry pays the Tariffs, passing that to the consumer. In the end the USA consumer pays 100% of all tariffs imposed by the USA. There are not many popular items even made in America, and of those items very few have parts that are 100% from the USA. That device you are using to read this does not have a "Made in the USA" competitor, the same with just about all appliances and TVs as well. There are also very few different kinds of food grown in America. Just some of the ways all prices will go up if the tariffs go into effect.
@@dera6347 The reason that most of our manufacturing moved overseas was NAFTA and agreements like that, removing all tariffs on imports, removing any penalty from those companies to move out of the country to where there are lower labor costs, and then importing their products back into the United States. Other countries exist with high tariffs and still have high manufacturing in their countries. It also is about National Security. If we don't make anything for ourselves, then our military is dependent on the countries where all of their supplies and armament are made. Our ships, our vehicles, our everything.
@@kusho50 NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement. That agreement did split US manufacturing between Mexico and Canada, however China supplying the labor was already in full force before that agreement passed. WalMart is the one who pioneered cheap China labor for a lower selling point. They were the Henry Ford of all of it. However it all got to where it is today, it is not wise to bite that hand that feeds you, until you have figured out how to make your own food first. Starting a trade war with a country who supply far mor to you than you to them is not wise, at all. All the other country has to do is suspend all trade. It would smarter to bring manufacturing back before starting trade wars. The other country does not pay the tariffs.
I believe he wants to return to a federal government funded by tariffs and excise taxes, rather than income taxes; as if the constitution was not ever amended to allow them to tax us directly.
Technically speaking, the Constitution was not ever amended to allow them to tax us directly. Even if we assume that the 16th was legally ratified (and there's strong evidence to suggest it wasn't) wages are not income, at they were not consider as income at that time. Wages are a trade, one resource for another, labor for money. Income referred specifically to profits made by companies and corporations.
@@messiahshepherd9266 That is very true.. As long as there's a central bank that can print any amount of money, the government is NEVER going to 'live within its means.'
Read the amendment. It has no details, basically authorized Congress to do whatever they wanted. The US income tax has never been legitimated as written.
Cancelling foreign governments' officials' visas to the U.S. probably has a better chance of working than imposing tariffs, at least for Latin American countries. Nothing hurts the sensibilities of Latin American bureaucrats (above a certain level in the hierarchy) more than not being able to travel to Disney World for vacation; nothing hurts the egos of supreme court justices of certain countries more than not being able to participate in conferences at Harvard University or give lectures in NYC. In these cultures, "personal honor" means a lot, sometimes more than money, and the loss of prestige with the public that comes with such a rejection is enormous.
It is clear "personal honor" means nothing to most politicians and senior bureacrats, even "public honor" means nothing when media coordinates to hide issues.
Please explain why the decrease in domestic supply cannot be reversed by domestic producers. Why can they not expand operations to fulfill demand, or what about new producers starting up domestically filling that demand?
Because the division of labor makes everything cheaper. Yeah, you could do everything yourself, from the ground up, but it's way better if people specialize. America can grow avocados and make maple syrup, but it's better for us (and them) if we refine oil and trade for those things.
The regulatory system, environmental laws, safetyism, anti-discrimination laws, energy grid, labor laws and costs, budget deficits, and constant rents to the service sector will prevent industrialization regardless of trade policy. It will go as well as Brazil or Nigeria’s protectionist policies.
By making everything USA's manufacturers need for their production more expensive with tariffs? That hits American exporters especially hard. There are too many reasons why manufactiring in the USA disappeared, and none of them got any better with tariffs.
Nope. You are wrong. I spent a majority of the 1990s working to spool up factories offshore to escape high taxes and high wages in the US. I can tell you firsthand that the successful practice of tariffs balance the playing field encouraging jobs to be re-domesticated. I've seen it, I've lived it, and there's a reason why Biden put 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars.
Value added goods, ie goods which are not raw materials, such as chinese bevs are not the same thing as raw materials used by domestic manufacturing. If you take a consumer good and place a tariff on it to prevent dumping you can as you say level competition to some extent. He even says so in the video. What he's talking/warning about however are raw materials. Say you're a steel mill. You need to import iron ore, limestone and coking coal. If tariffs are placed on iron ore imports from country A, then you need to either find another supplier or pay the tariff. New suppliers are going to try for the highest price they can, so they'll only slightly undercut the tariff price. So now it costs more for domestic production of steel. That steel now needs to be sold at a higher price to recoup the loss. That means your clients, say domestic ev manufacturers, either pay your higher prices or find another supplier. If they go with your higher prices, their products become uncompetitive. If they go with a new supplier, then your industry withers, struggles and potentially if left long enough ceases to exist. Tariffs on raw materials hurt the importer more than the exporter. Tariffs on value added and finished goods hurt the exporter more than the importer.
Have you noticed that a $25,000 vehicle a few years ago is a $65,000 vehicle now? The reason for that is the tariffs Trump placed on foreign metals during his first term. I'm not sure how you think that this is beneficial to Americans. Your one life-experience (that you misunderstood) doesn't cancel the massive number of historical examples of tariffs causing the problems describe in this video.
@ronanderson5935 One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income. People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce. Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce. Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere. That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless! Everyone's hurt. Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Any time you put walls up to stop free trade, you get less and less wealthy. Put tariffs on all imports into a country and you have fewer options. What about tariffs on imports outside of a state? City? Neighborhood? Home? It's just a tax that inhibits free trade and extracts wealth from the economy and gives it to the government. The situation is made worse because the US is expensive to manufacture in. There are many regulations and price controls. In contrast, China gives more freedom for companies to innovate and manufacture at a good price. If we don't trade with these places, we lose access to affordable products.
@ronanderson5935 Did you even watch the video. Your anecdotal evidence that you misunderstood would fly directly in the face of logic. Tariffs have been proven to be a horrible idea for over a hundred years.
Thank you. Tariffs have long been a spark for war, both directly and indirectly, as economic barriers often serve as preludes to military conflict. Nations that restrict trade provoke retaliation, fuel economic distress, and turn commercial rivalries into political and military confrontations. History provides ample evidence of tariffs leading to war. One of the most infamous examples is the American Revolution, where British tariffs and mercantilist policies-such as the Navigation Acts and the Stamp Act-fueled resentment in the American colonies. Britain imposed these economic restrictions to control colonial trade and extract revenue, but they instead provoked boycotts, protests, and eventually armed rebellion. The War of 1812 similarly arose from economic tensions, as Britain’s restrictions on American trade with France, combined with American tariffs and embargoes, escalated hostilities. American frustration over British interference in commerce led to war, despite economic measures initially being meant to prevent conflict. The U.S. Civil War had a strong economic component as well. The North favored high protective tariffs to support industrial growth, while the South, reliant on free trade for its agricultural exports, opposed them. The dispute over tariffs deepened sectional tensions, exacerbating the division that led to secession and war. In the 20th century, tariffs played a major role in global conflicts. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 worsened the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory tariffs worldwide, deepening economic misery and contributing to the rise of fascist regimes. Economic nationalism and trade wars helped set the stage for World War II* as Germany and Japan sought to break free from economic strangulation by forcibly expanding their territories. Even today, economic protectionism heightens geopolitical tensions. Trade restrictions between major powers increase hostilities, as seen in U.S.-China relations, where tariffs and sanctions have strained diplomatic ties. Throughout history, nations that turn to economic barriers often find themselves on the road to military confrontation.
@@Pangora2 From the perspective of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics, this argument misunderstands the nature of trade and the harm of tariffs. The fact that other nations impose tariffs on us does not justify retaliating with our own. Protectionism does not create prosperity-it only limits economic freedom and makes everyone poorer. Mises argued that tariffs do not hurt foreign nations as much as they harm the domestic economy. When a government imposes tariffs, it raises prices for its own consumers, restricts their choices, and misallocates resources by propping up inefficient industries. Retaliatory tariffs only deepen this self-inflicted wound. If another country chooses to harm itself with protectionist policies, the rational response is not to follow suit but to maintain free trade, benefiting from cheaper goods and a more efficient allocation of capital. Moreover, tariffs do not "level the playing field"; they create distortions that harm economic cooperation. Mises emphasized that trade is mutually beneficial-each side gains from voluntary exchange. A trade war, on the other hand, escalates into mutual destruction, where businesses and consumers on both sides suffer. The proper response to foreign tariffs is not economic nationalism but advocacy for free trade, demonstrating that the real wealth of a nation comes from specialization, competition, and voluntary exchange. Instead of mirroring the economic errors of other nations, we should lead by example, proving that prosperity comes from freedom, not government intervention.
@1Whipperin The "proper response" hasn't worked. So it's time to turn the screws. Them placing 100%tariffs on our autos is an economic errors, you say? But it's only done by countries with very protected auto industries. I agree in principle that in an ideal world we should go for lower or no tariffs, but being naive about the actions of others is how Abel got stabbed by Cain.
No nation will go to war with the US over tariffs. It is suicide. Nuclear weapons also decrease the likelihood of someone starting a war over tariffs. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Also, most items countries import can be had from multiple sources.
@@Pangora2 The idea that turning the screws is the proper response to tariffs or trade imbalances is fundamentally flawed in a way that misunderstands both economic principles and the long-term implications of escalation. While it's true that some countries engage in protectionism, such as placing high tariffs on imported goods to shield their industries, adopting a similarly hostile posture is a reactive approach that often exacerbates tensions rather than resolving them. Firstly, while the retaliatory stance might seem justified in the short term, it rarely works in the long term. History is replete with examples where trade wars-fueled by escalating tariffs-only hurt the populations of the countries involved. In the Great Depression, for instance, the United States’ implementation of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act led to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which deepened the economic crisis. Instead of safeguarding industries, it caused trade to contract and hurt consumers, leading to a vicious cycle of retaliations and increasing economic harm. Secondly, the claim that "Abel got stabbed by Cain" introduces a flawed analogy. While Cain's actions were certainly malicious, Abel’s story is about the corruption of the heart and not about dealing with economic rivals or trade practices. In the realm of economics, responding to perceived slights or unfair practices by turning to aggressive tactics like tariffs or protectionism only escalates the conflict without addressing the root cause-namely, the failure of genuine open markets and cooperative international relationships. A better approach would be to seek diplomatic solutions, multilateral trade agreements, and a commitment to mutual benefit rather than punishing actions that harm everyone. Mises’ teachings on the subject are quite clear-tariffs distort the market, reduce competition, and lower the overall welfare of consumers. Higher tariffs, while they may protect domestic industries in the short term, limit the variety and lower the quality of goods available to consumers, which in turn stifles innovation and economic growth. The focus should be on creating conditions that foster fair competition rather than retaliating with punitive measures that only result in economic harm. Finally, being "naive" about the actions of others is not the issue here. The issue is about understanding the broader consequences of engaging in retaliatory tariffs. Responding to tariffs with an eye for long-term stability, negotiation, and reduction of trade barriers benefits all nations involved. By turning away from a zero-sum mentality and embracing a cooperative framework, we are far more likely to see peaceful, prosperous outcomes. Just as we do not solve interpersonal conflicts by escalating them, economic conflicts should be resolved with an eye toward reducing harm, not intensifying it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ the thing about tariffs is there easily added removed modified as opposed to corrupt organizations like ……. Wait for it……. The FBI. The IRS. The DOJ. gaaak
The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA company that buys the tariffed item at the USA post of entry pays the Tariffs, passing that to the consumer. In the end the USA consumer pays 100% of all tariffs imposed by the USA. There are not many popular items even made in America, and of those items very few have parts that are 100% from the USA. That device you are using to read this does not have a "Made in the USA" competitor, the same with just about all appliances and TVs as well. There are also very few different kinds of food grown in America. Just some of the ways all prices will go up if the tariffs go into effect.
@@AKeyearea8 There is very little USA even makes. There are no "Made in America" alternatives to Cell phone, computers, tablets, TVs, and many many other things. There is no such thing as a car made from 100% American parts. "Made in USA" does not mean that all the parts also came from the USA. It only means all of the parts came together in the USA for final assembly. If any of those parts have an increased tariff, then that product price will also increase. The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA country that buys the product at the USA port of entry pays all tariffs imposed by the USA. Then they pass that cost to the consumer. In the end the Consumer pays all of it. There is a small verity of food the USA produces. Prices are not going to go down, the USA has never had de-flatiron, however it has always had inflation (like the rest of the world) Since 1960, the only 2 years at 0% inflation were 2009 and 2015. This is why there was no COLA adjustment in 2010 and 2016.
replacing the income tax is the whole point of the tariff plan... And you make unfair assumptions like "this won't work because trump won't negotiate well" maybe you should just wait and see, rather than criticizing a strawman argument which assumes that Trump will fail on everything else while raising tarrifs
wouldn't it just get passed down to the consumer? with most things being made in other countries or many materials that come from other countries, us making up the tariff difference will be far greater that what we had to give for income taxes. plus business here will think the average worker has more money so they will increase their prices too and americans will become far more poor then they are now.
@GotoMaki4Micah companies don't respond to liquidity that way. If there is more money to buy up their stock, then they raise prices to produce more, hiring more Americans. They don't just raise them for the hell of it. If they perceive consumers have more cash they have no way to know that cash will actually come their way. They could be paying down debts instead.
If nothing else, this is an excellent step in the direction of the general Populus having the mindset that the income tax is bad. For the entirety of my life of 31 years, the status quo has been that the income tax is necessary not only in its existence - but also in its burden/intensity. "Just shut up and pay your income tax, you subject of the crown you - everything the government does with it is important and necessary." Furthermore, if we got rid of the progressive tax system, then any cost associated with tariffs would at least be shared among all income classes. Thus, if one works more hours, with more intensity, in a job more valuable; then he or she would not be penalized for doing so by paying more taxes for that effort.
"Trump will replace the income tax with tariffs" no he won't, if the revenue was to be the same the tariffs would have to be exorbitant with imports remaining the same, which is impossible. And no, he will NOT make significant cuts to spending.
This isn't quite right. The tariffs can't be exorbitant or people will simply grudgingly buy the more expensive domestic products. The only way to actually collect revenue for the tariffs, is to keep them low enough that people prefer to pay them than to buy domestic. The irony is that for Trump to promise to fund the government with tariffs, he's essentially saying that he believes the tariffs will be so ineffective at subsidizing domestic producers, that the private sector will sooner choose to pay trillions in taxes than buy domestic goods and services.
"Tariffs are an opportunity for economic movement" If they don't buy from America, they have to pay tariffs on goods. This has been, is and will be a millennia-old deal in the world of trade. The free economy has always been like this. Of course, this is not a punishment, but a two-way opportunity. America must expand its financial flow within the country to maintain the financial independence of the country and its people (all countries should do this). The value of the US dollar has long been higher than other currencies, and the survival of America must be ensured by lowering the value of the dollar. This means that free trade is for the whole world and for the benefit of all the people of the world, not stupid and authoritarian globalists.
3:31 well…yes. That’s exactly right. It’s becoming painfully obvious that “line go up“ economics like you’re proposing as a good thing is not only an unsustainable model because it sacrifices long term sustainability for short term gains, but it’s also unsustainable because of human factors like dignity and responsibility to your neighborhood. Plus, a tariff is better than a war.
great points - tariffs have the potential to set off a depression, especially if they’re not offset by the elimination of income taxes.. even then, we want to gut government and make it 90% smaller and any tax or revenue should ideally be eliminated!
It's truly amazing how in less than a year's time, I've been redefined from "far-right fascist sympathizer" to "left-wing corporate shill" with my feet firmly planted in the same spot the whole time.
Your right Tariffs will not make America Great again, in fact nothing he does will make us great, what would make us great would be an improvement in our Morals.
From readng the comments it seems as though 2 is as many steps as someone that thinks tariffs are bad can think ahead in a process. Sad. They picture the tariff, postulate the first result, then say "number go down, bad", and then thats it, no more thinking or acknowledging how that will cause the next adaptation. Most dont fathom that fewer, less, and smaller could be of any benefit for any period of time.
@@TransNeingerian One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income. People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce. Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce. Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere. That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless! Everyone's hurt. Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
@austinbyrd1703 when one man doesnt spend, the other man doesnt earn. Taxing consumption is literally more logical and practical than taxing income. And producing less is fine - especially when you want WHO is producing it to switch. When WHO produces the items changes to someone that produces it cheaper and locally, consumption goes back up. Continuing to read, youre just backwards. The point of an economy is NOT "brrrrr, number go up!" Its to support its citizens. Making sure our subsidized, government dependent families can purchase everything they ever wanted from china and "muh free trade" dont sound like boons. There should be no better worker, manufacturer, or product better in another country - once you have attempted to be completely self sufficient you only import materials and resources you need or are strategically important. Getting things from other countries is a LUXURY, not a standard - which is reflected in the higher cost. We have too many imports at a low cost, creating a dependency that can be used to manipulate the country and creating a community that would rather import foreign labor than invest in itself. Tariffs allow the US to trim fat while getting paid. Do you guys really think we should be growing and trading at all costs or just to make something a few bucks cheaper? China uses tariff and other revenue to subsidize sectors so heavily that they can shove trash products down other countries throats and put another country's local competing business on the street while manufacturing inferior goods - cornering the global market, creating waste and pollution and unemployment everywhere but their own. This is not something to copy - they shouldnt be tariffed but immediately embargoed. The US needs to rip that bandaid off, not continue to suckle. Your judgement on income tax is wrong. Its effects arent equally applicable and distributed, and itd be bad if it was. Nobody in the bottom ~50% should be paying ANY income tax and their shouldnt be any tax loopholes for individuals to navigate each year.
You literally start off the video with a real world example of exactly HOW Trump intends to use tarrifs and how quickly they can be SUCCESSFUL,... and then spend the rest of the video IMAGINING Trump being hurt by tarrifs sometime in the future. Pure 🤡🌎
One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income. People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce. Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce. Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere. That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless! Everyone's hurt. Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Yes. Tariffs are bad, that is why the USA continued to sell oil and ammunition to the Axis Powers during WWII so the prices wouldn’t rise during the war.
Unless he gets rid of the IRS and income tax first it will never go away and we will pay ever more.
12 годин тому
Tariffs against countries like China that can basically use the population as slave labour and where diplomatic and trade avenues are open and well tested but just making the government there stronger makes complete sense. Against Mexico and Canada not so much, but I think the real problem is that they are circumventing US tariffs then anyone actually wanting a tariff on stuff made in Canada, including Trump...
People are bitching about income tax and how big tariffs need to be to cover 2.5 trillion$ of income taxes yet noone bothers to say a word that US budget last year was like 5 trillion$.... Tariffs will be additional tax on consumers here and income tax will stay. Mark my word
I don’t dispute the negative impacts of tariffs under a gold standard; however, a fiat system creates an artificial import/export environment based on currency manipulation. Also, as the world reserve currency, our number one export is dollars and not goods and services. We need to import to sustain the dollar status. If we exported more than we imported, what would other countries use as a medium. It couldn’t be the USD because we print the USD. Some call it the world circular economy. In reality it is a game of currency export and devaluation. Also, Mises doesn’t attack the ethical issues of income tax and the use of gov extortion against its own citizens. NO taxes would be great, but not realistic. So, do we tax people directly via an income tax or indirectly via tariffs. Off the mark on this. The real problem as always is the type of money!
I think many people knew this policy would ultimately be a bad idea. But they looked to the other side and saw even worse ideas (tax on unrealized gains being a prime example) and realized if there was any sliver of hope that someone would do _something_ to take the edge off, even temporarily, Trump was the best shot they had. I wish it didn’t have to come to this, and things certainly may get worse, but a 5% chance was still greater than 0% when the bets were placed.
In a VACUUM this would be correct but we are not in a vacuum, we are in a modern society where WE are facing tariffs all over AND the rest of the world wants our consumers. How about green lighting the tariffs and repealing the 16th amendment?
We don’t care anymore man. We’d actually like to go full on isolationist if it was an option. Whatever it takes to stop being leached off of by multinationals. We can do without Colombian coffee. Things might have to get much worse before they get better.
You're completely missing the point: the reason for tariffs is not to "protect" the American worker from foreign "competition" but to put a tax on rich Americans who would rather buy luxury goods made abroad and benefit from cheap labor than invest to have these goods produced in this country by free men who are paid a decent salary. It's a tax on the would-be slave drivers in our midst, which can then by used to pay for the very army that separates us from the slavery practiced abroad. Nice try though obfuscating the issue: even if there were fewer regulations and salaries had not been artificially inflated by Unions, we still couldn't "compete" with slave labor - NOR SHOULD WE EVEN WANT TO!!! Libertarians are what they are: rebranded die-hard Capitalists, wanna-be slave masters who wish they had been born 150 years earlier during the "Gilded Age" so they too could have been "Captains of Industry"... Not a pretty sight.
I commend your observation of inadequate allocation of domestic resources, and the unfortunate reality of federal government's unholy matrimony with trans-national corporations, which is a genuine source of massive wealth redistribution. But really, I was astonished by your lack of self-awareness while criticizing protectionists of false realism. I sought economic realism in this monologue, but I mostly found an economic church sermon. I love the bright minds at Mises (I have a lot to learn from you still!) and am simply disappointed by the appearance of inadequate consideration of the opposing position. I could call it strawmanning, but I don't believe it to be intentional at all. I hope you will investigate which presuppositions you make in your video that may not correlate to reality. There are multiple, and if I had to sum them up nicely, it seems to me to be a kind of naivety about the global neoliberal mixed market and its real-life effects on """free trade""" practice. You also claim, effectively, that any and all resources that could be used for domestic production are being used for other aspects of the market. That claim varies from misleading to flat out incorrect depending on the industry you want to discuss. There is no aspect of this false free trade market that proves we have been true practitioners of creative destruction, that we have truly reached maximum efficiency in the current arrangement. And that is because of the cornerstone of this real life market is not free trade, but foreign actors assuming privileges under the guise of free trade. True free trade does not exist because these actors have used authoritarianism to crush better competitors that we could be using when we stop treating the "Bad players" as honest competitors. I believe in free market economics with those who wish to conduct free market economics. And unfortunately, the global community has agreed to a bastardization of this concept that has pre-selected winners and losers. Don't play games where you are designed to be the loser. Make a new game, and find fair players. That is my philosophy.
Free trade arguments come down to a repetition of principles, because their opponents offer nothing but emotion and vagueries. How is anyone supposed to respond to "You're being naive about the global neoliberal (fake label) mixed market"? Free traders have done the math time and time again to show why free trade still creates a better outcome for one's own country, even when the other countries have tariffs.
Agree generally, but the idea of threatening to hold back military protection would have similar consequences, for example driving once allies to align with China. Not saying this is good or bad, just that there's always consequences when playing hardball
Respectfully, President Trumps words and actions have consistently spoken against him with doom and gloom predictions. Consistently, he has surprised his critics, often proving them wrong. Regardless, he earned a mandate for change, and he's delivering. Blaming the electorates involvement when billions are spent on manipulation is also a cop out. Leadership made this situation. If they dont like the results, this might be a good time to reflect and update the status quo.
What a ridiculous argument. Adding tariffs adds to prices so lowers demand, but ignores that stealing money from consumers via taxes lowers demand as well, as well as destroying jobs means unemployment also lowers demand. Stop cherry picking which pieces you look at. Economics is a complex system, and you need to look at the WHOLE system, which pretty much most economists (including Mises people) don't. You have a particular view, just like Krugman lies for his view.
Mannnn, it’s like we all fell off a turnip truck. Tariffs are a bargaining tool, either you come to the table and play nice or you’ll get tariffed. Good on him using it on Columbia. Border security is paramount, tariffs if needed to complete this ongoing task
@@truecatholic1 One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income. People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce. Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce. Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere. That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless! Everyone's hurt. Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
People act like ‘free trade’ is some magical force that always leads to prosperity, but the reality is that one-sided free trade-where the U.S. keeps its markets wide open while other countries protect their industries-has gutted American manufacturing. Entire sectors like steel, electronics, and textiles were offshored because foreign competitors enjoyed state subsidies, currency manipulation, and outright protectionism while we played by the ideological rulebook. There’s a reason ceteris paribus is a key concept in economics-free trade only works when all other factors are equal. But in the real world, they’re not. Pretending otherwise isn’t economics, it’s dogma. A nation that can’t produce its own critical goods is at the mercy of those who can.
So many great business people on here spouting their beliefs. I not sure anyone alive has seen tariffs in action, just alot of fear mongering. Let the President do his job and lets see what happens because I doubt it can get much worse than it is now. So put away your crystal balls because it's not your job to run this country its the Presidents job and so far it's going very well. Look at results not projections
Clinton secured Most Favoured Nation status for China. MFN: Most favoured nation status is given to an international trade partner to ensure non-discriminatory trade between all partner countries of the WTO. A country which provides MFN status to another country has to provide concessions, privileges, and immunity in trade agreements. It is the first clause in the GATT.
Yes they are. From the perspective of Austrian economics tariffs are possibly the most harmful economic policy he promises. The historical record backs that up.
This is so far the biggest thing to call Trump out on. Trump was supposed to be representing people struggling to get by. And his first tack is to tax the ever-loving crap out of them - people who absolutely cannot afford to pay 50% more for everything they buy just so that they can wave a little American Flag, and give limousine Republicans warm fuzzies. This is as much a luxury belief as any the Progressives held. And if the tariffs weren't enough, Trump is promising to stem the flow of dollars abroad at the same time as he's promising to hike inflation with lower interest rates. Americans have long avoided the worst of our government's inflation by sending our dollars abroad. This combination of policies is going to make inflation absolutely crushing.
@TransNeingerian One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income. People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce. Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce. Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere. That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless! Everyone's hurt. Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
This is ideological and just wrong. There is definitely an art to tarrifs, but unrestrained free trade is a grotesque failure. You literally showed a picture of a real hollowed out town and then said "but theory" ... Tarrifs need to be artful. Also you kicked this off with a demonstrated successful use of a tarrif! I think Trump has the skill to use this tool to our advantage. I get all the theory, but this is iseological thinking and not pragmatic
This fool went to the actual libertarian party and spoke while doing these policies. And he convinced the leader to commit party treason and endorse the duopoly. Angela… what is wrong?
What is wrong? The democrats are what's wrong. Some people sold their souls and voted for Trump because The Biden Administration, and all the roaches that used it's shadow for cover, was literally an existential threat.
You never played poker did you ? It will reset negotiations and the terms for those. You never go for the full win unless you are sure. . you drain the pot until you tip the scales.
Unless you remove all legal restrictions/regulations on US manufacture, "free trade" functions as an ankle chain on domestic business. Make an honest choice.
If you restrict manufacture and then force consumers to buy only that, you are constraining everyone to inferior or more expensive goods and services. Fundamentally everyone must do with less and worse. The only answer lies in reform, we can't tax ourselves into prosperity.
Then why did America successfully use this system before the IRS?
If tariffs come with the elimination of the income tax, I'll deal with them. Otherwise, it's just another tax and what else is new from the Feds?
Imagine you were forced to bet $10,000 on it. You don't have to tell me what you would bet, but I find that if I picture high stakes I get more honest with myself. Personally, with $10,000 on the line I strongly bet against the income tax being repealed
A 50% tax hike on everything you buy is pretty new....Our run of the mill sociopaths were never that stupid. (I realize that it won't actually be 50%, but rather the higher of 50% or the difference between the foreign good and the cheapest domestic alternative, but still)
Every country tariffs us heavily, yet we take their products with either no tariffs at all, or very low tariffs. This sets up very big trade disparities, making it so our businesses can not operate in America, and all move overseas. From what I see, Trump just wants to even this out a bit, and has to negotiate for America.
Other countries don't tariff the US - they tariff themselves. Tariffs are self sanctions. The economics here do not require a level playing field. Freer economies simply outperform less free ones, fundamentally because freedom allows each person to use their specific knowledge to calculate the best answer for them at every decision point.
@kusho50 that's not how tariffs work though. You're speaking of them as if evening out the effects is a good thing, and yet if two countries both have 50% tariffs on each other's products then all that does is make them both poorer than they otherwise could be if tariffs were lower, even on one side.
The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA company that buys the tariffed item at the USA post of entry pays the Tariffs, passing that to the consumer. In the end the USA consumer pays 100% of all tariffs imposed by the USA.
There are not many popular items even made in America, and of those items very few have parts that are 100% from the USA. That device you are using to read this does not have a "Made in the USA" competitor, the same with just about all appliances and TVs as well. There are also very few different kinds of food grown in America.
Just some of the ways all prices will go up if the tariffs go into effect.
@@dera6347 The reason that most of our manufacturing moved overseas was NAFTA and agreements like that, removing all tariffs on imports, removing any penalty from those companies to move out of the country to where there are lower labor costs, and then importing their products back into the United States. Other countries exist with high tariffs and still have high manufacturing in their countries. It also is about National Security. If we don't make anything for ourselves, then our military is dependent on the countries where all of their supplies and armament are made. Our ships, our vehicles, our everything.
@@kusho50 NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement. That agreement did split US manufacturing between Mexico and Canada, however China supplying the labor was already in full force before that agreement passed.
WalMart is the one who pioneered cheap China labor for a lower selling point. They were the Henry Ford of all of it.
However it all got to where it is today, it is not wise to bite that hand that feeds you, until you have figured out how to make your own food first. Starting a trade war with a country who supply far mor to you than you to them is not wise, at all. All the other country has to do is suspend all trade. It would smarter to bring manufacturing back before starting trade wars.
The other country does not pay the tariffs.
I believe he wants to return to a federal government funded by tariffs and excise taxes, rather than income taxes; as if the constitution was not ever amended to allow them to tax us directly.
Technically speaking, the Constitution was not ever amended to allow them to tax us directly. Even if we assume that the 16th was legally ratified (and there's strong evidence to suggest it wasn't) wages are not income, at they were not consider as income at that time. Wages are a trade, one resource for another, labor for money. Income referred specifically to profits made by companies and corporations.
That's great but the US government is still going to be engaging in deficit spending
@@666devilknight replacing the income tax with tariffs is impossible without massive spending cuts (not happening) or massive deficit
@@messiahshepherd9266 That is very true.. As long as there's a central bank that can print any amount of money, the government is NEVER going to 'live within its means.'
Read the amendment. It has no details, basically authorized Congress to do whatever they wanted. The US income tax has never been legitimated as written.
Cancelling foreign governments' officials' visas to the U.S. probably has a better chance of working than imposing tariffs, at least for Latin American countries. Nothing hurts the sensibilities of Latin American bureaucrats (above a certain level in the hierarchy) more than not being able to travel to Disney World for vacation; nothing hurts the egos of supreme court justices of certain countries more than not being able to participate in conferences at Harvard University or give lectures in NYC.
In these cultures, "personal honor" means a lot, sometimes more than money, and the loss of prestige with the public that comes with such a rejection is enormous.
I bet that you wrote your comment having Brazil in mind.
@@frankstrawnation 🤐
Lembrei de Barroso e Moraes.
@@gilbertonogueira3481 🤐
It is clear "personal honor" means nothing to most politicians and senior bureacrats, even "public honor" means nothing when media coordinates to hide issues.
Please explain why the decrease in domestic supply cannot be reversed by domestic producers. Why can they not expand operations to fulfill demand, or what about new producers starting up domestically filling that demand?
Because the division of labor makes everything cheaper. Yeah, you could do everything yourself, from the ground up, but it's way better if people specialize. America can grow avocados and make maple syrup, but it's better for us (and them) if we refine oil and trade for those things.
1:50 ya lost me...
It can work and will work better by limiting the government.
The regulatory system, environmental laws, safetyism, anti-discrimination laws, energy grid, labor laws and costs, budget deficits, and constant rents to the service sector will prevent industrialization regardless of trade policy. It will go as well as Brazil or Nigeria’s protectionist policies.
@Rasenganplanet That's a CROCK!
As a Brazilian I must say that you're goddamn right.
Safetyism is the biggest threat to humanity in my book.
Simple solution, bring back American manufacturing.
Great idea. You should get on that.
@@troll_kin9456 Trump already is.
Try and keep up.
Americans cant afford American manufacturing, try to keep up.
By making everything USA's manufacturers need for their production more expensive with tariffs?
That hits American exporters especially hard.
There are too many reasons why manufactiring in the USA disappeared, and none of them got any better with tariffs.
Nope. You are wrong. I spent a majority of the 1990s working to spool up factories offshore to escape high taxes and high wages in the US. I can tell you firsthand that the successful practice of tariffs balance the playing field encouraging jobs to be re-domesticated. I've seen it, I've lived it, and there's a reason why Biden put 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars.
Value added goods, ie goods which are not raw materials, such as chinese bevs are not the same thing as raw materials used by domestic manufacturing. If you take a consumer good and place a tariff on it to prevent dumping you can as you say level competition to some extent. He even says so in the video.
What he's talking/warning about however are raw materials. Say you're a steel mill. You need to import iron ore, limestone and coking coal. If tariffs are placed on iron ore imports from country A, then you need to either find another supplier or pay the tariff. New suppliers are going to try for the highest price they can, so they'll only slightly undercut the tariff price.
So now it costs more for domestic production of steel. That steel now needs to be sold at a higher price to recoup the loss. That means your clients, say domestic ev manufacturers, either pay your higher prices or find another supplier.
If they go with your higher prices, their products become uncompetitive. If they go with a new supplier, then your industry withers, struggles and potentially if left long enough ceases to exist.
Tariffs on raw materials hurt the importer more than the exporter. Tariffs on value added and finished goods hurt the exporter more than the importer.
Have you noticed that a $25,000 vehicle a few years ago is a $65,000 vehicle now? The reason for that is the tariffs Trump placed on foreign metals during his first term. I'm not sure how you think that this is beneficial to Americans.
Your one life-experience (that you misunderstood) doesn't cancel the massive number of historical examples of tariffs causing the problems describe in this video.
@ronanderson5935 One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income.
People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce.
Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce.
Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere.
That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless!
Everyone's hurt.
Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Any time you put walls up to stop free trade, you get less and less wealthy. Put tariffs on all imports into a country and you have fewer options. What about tariffs on imports outside of a state? City? Neighborhood? Home? It's just a tax that inhibits free trade and extracts wealth from the economy and gives it to the government.
The situation is made worse because the US is expensive to manufacture in. There are many regulations and price controls. In contrast, China gives more freedom for companies to innovate and manufacture at a good price. If we don't trade with these places, we lose access to affordable products.
@ronanderson5935 Did you even watch the video. Your anecdotal evidence that you misunderstood would fly directly in the face of logic. Tariffs have been proven to be a horrible idea for over a hundred years.
Thank you. Tariffs have long been a spark for war, both directly and indirectly, as economic barriers often serve as preludes to military conflict. Nations that restrict trade provoke retaliation, fuel economic distress, and turn commercial rivalries into political and military confrontations. History provides ample evidence of tariffs leading to war.
One of the most infamous examples is the American Revolution, where British tariffs and mercantilist policies-such as the Navigation Acts and the Stamp Act-fueled resentment in the American colonies. Britain imposed these economic restrictions to control colonial trade and extract revenue, but they instead provoked boycotts, protests, and eventually armed rebellion.
The War of 1812 similarly arose from economic tensions, as Britain’s restrictions on American trade with France, combined with American tariffs and embargoes, escalated hostilities. American frustration over British interference in commerce led to war, despite economic measures initially being meant to prevent conflict.
The U.S. Civil War had a strong economic component as well. The North favored high protective tariffs to support industrial growth, while the South, reliant on free trade for its agricultural exports, opposed them. The dispute over tariffs deepened sectional tensions, exacerbating the division that led to secession and war.
In the 20th century, tariffs played a major role in global conflicts. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 worsened the Great Depression by triggering retaliatory tariffs worldwide, deepening economic misery and contributing to the rise of fascist regimes. Economic nationalism and trade wars helped set the stage for World War II* as Germany and Japan sought to break free from economic strangulation by forcibly expanding their territories.
Even today, economic protectionism heightens geopolitical tensions. Trade restrictions between major powers increase hostilities, as seen in U.S.-China relations, where tariffs and sanctions have strained diplomatic ties. Throughout history, nations that turn to economic barriers often find themselves on the road to military confrontation.
Good, go tell those that put tariffs on us to take them down, and then we wouldn't need to have this talk.
@@Pangora2 From the perspective of Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics, this argument misunderstands the nature of trade and the harm of tariffs. The fact that other nations impose tariffs on us does not justify retaliating with our own. Protectionism does not create prosperity-it only limits economic freedom and makes everyone poorer.
Mises argued that tariffs do not hurt foreign nations as much as they harm the domestic economy. When a government imposes tariffs, it raises prices for its own consumers, restricts their choices, and misallocates resources by propping up inefficient industries. Retaliatory tariffs only deepen this self-inflicted wound. If another country chooses to harm itself with protectionist policies, the rational response is not to follow suit but to maintain free trade, benefiting from cheaper goods and a more efficient allocation of capital.
Moreover, tariffs do not "level the playing field"; they create distortions that harm economic cooperation. Mises emphasized that trade is mutually beneficial-each side gains from voluntary exchange. A trade war, on the other hand, escalates into mutual destruction, where businesses and consumers on both sides suffer.
The proper response to foreign tariffs is not economic nationalism but advocacy for free trade, demonstrating that the real wealth of a nation comes from specialization, competition, and voluntary exchange. Instead of mirroring the economic errors of other nations, we should lead by example, proving that prosperity comes from freedom, not government intervention.
@1Whipperin The "proper response" hasn't worked. So it's time to turn the screws. Them placing 100%tariffs on our autos is an economic errors, you say? But it's only done by countries with very protected auto industries.
I agree in principle that in an ideal world we should go for lower or no tariffs, but being naive about the actions of others is how Abel got stabbed by Cain.
No nation will go to war with the US over tariffs. It is suicide. Nuclear weapons also decrease the likelihood of someone starting a war over tariffs. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Also, most items countries import can be had from multiple sources.
@@Pangora2 The idea that turning the screws is the proper response to tariffs or trade imbalances is fundamentally flawed in a way that misunderstands both economic principles and the long-term implications of escalation. While it's true that some countries engage in protectionism, such as placing high tariffs on imported goods to shield their industries, adopting a similarly hostile posture is a reactive approach that often exacerbates tensions rather than resolving them.
Firstly, while the retaliatory stance might seem justified in the short term, it rarely works in the long term. History is replete with examples where trade wars-fueled by escalating tariffs-only hurt the populations of the countries involved. In the Great Depression, for instance, the United States’ implementation of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act led to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which deepened the economic crisis. Instead of safeguarding industries, it caused trade to contract and hurt consumers, leading to a vicious cycle of retaliations and increasing economic harm.
Secondly, the claim that "Abel got stabbed by Cain" introduces a flawed analogy. While Cain's actions were certainly malicious, Abel’s story is about the corruption of the heart and not about dealing with economic rivals or trade practices. In the realm of economics, responding to perceived slights or unfair practices by turning to aggressive tactics like tariffs or protectionism only escalates the conflict without addressing the root cause-namely, the failure of genuine open markets and cooperative international relationships. A better approach would be to seek diplomatic solutions, multilateral trade agreements, and a commitment to mutual benefit rather than punishing actions that harm everyone.
Mises’ teachings on the subject are quite clear-tariffs distort the market, reduce competition, and lower the overall welfare of consumers. Higher tariffs, while they may protect domestic industries in the short term, limit the variety and lower the quality of goods available to consumers, which in turn stifles innovation and economic growth. The focus should be on creating conditions that foster fair competition rather than retaliating with punitive measures that only result in economic harm.
Finally, being "naive" about the actions of others is not the issue here. The issue is about understanding the broader consequences of engaging in retaliatory tariffs. Responding to tariffs with an eye for long-term stability, negotiation, and reduction of trade barriers benefits all nations involved. By turning away from a zero-sum mentality and embracing a cooperative framework, we are far more likely to see peaceful, prosperous outcomes. Just as we do not solve interpersonal conflicts by escalating them, economic conflicts should be resolved with an eye toward reducing harm, not intensifying it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ the thing about tariffs is there easily added removed modified as opposed to corrupt organizations like ……. Wait for it……. The FBI. The IRS. The DOJ. gaaak
Yeah but tariffs are INFLATIONARY, elimination of governmental departments is DEFLATIONARY. Tariffs are nothing but a tax .
@ ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ what do you want?……. Perfection.? GOD created this universe and the mess we are in. ….. there is no free whale
The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA company that buys the tariffed item at the USA post of entry pays the Tariffs, passing that to the consumer. In the end the USA consumer pays 100% of all tariffs imposed by the USA.
There are not many popular items even made in America, and of those items very few have parts that are 100% from the USA. That device you are using to read this does not have a "Made in the USA" competitor, the same with just about all appliances and TVs as well. There are also very few different kinds of food grown in America.
Just some of the ways all prices will go up if the tariffs go into effect.
You mean the traitors
No, cost will go down bc they will be forced to buy American
@@AKeyearea8 There is very little USA even makes. There are no "Made in America" alternatives to Cell phone, computers, tablets, TVs, and many many other things.
There is no such thing as a car made from 100% American parts.
"Made in USA" does not mean that all the parts also came from the USA. It only means all of the parts came together in the USA for final assembly. If any of those parts have an increased tariff, then that product price will also increase.
The other country does not pay the tariffs. The USA country that buys the product at the USA port of entry pays all tariffs imposed by the USA. Then they pass that cost to the consumer. In the end the Consumer pays all of it.
There is a small verity of food the USA produces.
Prices are not going to go down, the USA has never had de-flatiron, however it has always had inflation (like the rest of the world) Since 1960, the only 2 years at 0% inflation were 2009 and 2015. This is why there was no COLA adjustment in 2010 and 2016.
@@dera6347 exactly. Usa needs to make more
@@dera6347 worked for nazi Germany 🤷♂️
replacing the income tax is the whole point of the tariff plan...
And you make unfair assumptions like "this won't work because trump won't negotiate well"
maybe you should just wait and see, rather than criticizing a strawman argument which assumes that Trump will fail on everything else while raising tarrifs
Libertarians love only to complain, not actually solve problems.
wouldn't it just get passed down to the consumer? with most things being made in other countries or many materials that come from other countries, us making up the tariff difference will be far greater that what we had to give for income taxes. plus business here will think the average worker has more money so they will increase their prices too and americans will become far more poor then they are now.
@GotoMaki4Micah companies don't respond to liquidity that way. If there is more money to buy up their stock, then they raise prices to produce more, hiring more Americans. They don't just raise them for the hell of it. If they perceive consumers have more cash they have no way to know that cash will actually come their way. They could be paying down debts instead.
How is a tariff on Canadian lumber going to drop the price on housing for middle Americans? Tariffs ARE A TAX on the end consumer.
You said it: "tariff plan". In another words it means planning economy.
If nothing else, this is an excellent step in the direction of the general Populus having the mindset that the income tax is bad. For the entirety of my life of 31 years, the status quo has been that the income tax is necessary not only in its existence - but also in its burden/intensity. "Just shut up and pay your income tax, you subject of the crown you - everything the government does with it is important and necessary." Furthermore, if we got rid of the progressive tax system, then any cost associated with tariffs would at least be shared among all income classes. Thus, if one works more hours, with more intensity, in a job more valuable; then he or she would not be penalized for doing so by paying more taxes for that effort.
"Trump will replace the income tax with tariffs" no he won't, if the revenue was to be the same the tariffs would have to be exorbitant with imports remaining the same, which is impossible. And no, he will NOT make significant cuts to spending.
He already has made significant cuts to spending.
@drakethesnek6429 sure thing buddy
This isn't quite right. The tariffs can't be exorbitant or people will simply grudgingly buy the more expensive domestic products. The only way to actually collect revenue for the tariffs, is to keep them low enough that people prefer to pay them than to buy domestic. The irony is that for Trump to promise to fund the government with tariffs, he's essentially saying that he believes the tariffs will be so ineffective at subsidizing domestic producers, that the private sector will sooner choose to pay trillions in taxes than buy domestic goods and services.
@troll_kin9456 "this isn't quite right" *agrees with me*
@ Lol, you're right. I misunderstood what you wrote. I see it now.
"Tariffs are an opportunity for economic movement"
If they don't buy from America, they have to pay tariffs on goods. This has been, is and will be a millennia-old deal in the world of trade. The free economy has always been like this.
Of course, this is not a punishment, but a two-way opportunity. America must expand its financial flow within the country to maintain the financial independence of the country and its people (all countries should do this).
The value of the US dollar has long been higher than other currencies, and the survival of America must be ensured by lowering the value of the dollar.
This means that free trade is for the whole world and for the benefit of all the people of the world, not stupid and authoritarian globalists.
I like that you discuss the topic, we should not blindly hail everything coming from the presidency
Common sense
3:31 well…yes. That’s exactly right. It’s becoming painfully obvious that “line go up“ economics like you’re proposing as a good thing is not only an unsustainable model because it sacrifices long term sustainability for short term gains, but it’s also unsustainable because of human factors like dignity and responsibility to your neighborhood. Plus, a tariff is better than a war.
great points - tariffs have the potential to set off a depression, especially if they’re not offset by the elimination of income taxes.. even then, we want to gut government and make it 90% smaller and any tax or revenue should ideally be eliminated!
It's truly amazing how in less than a year's time, I've been redefined from "far-right fascist sympathizer" to "left-wing corporate shill" with my feet firmly planted in the same spot the whole time.
Your right Tariffs will not make America Great again, in fact nothing he does will make us great, what would make us great would be an improvement in our Morals.
Improving morals will require heavy violations of the non aggression principle.
@@ExtremelyRightWing name checks out
and tell me, how will arbitrary morals translate into money that will boost the economy?
Do you have a plan to convert pixie dust into fuel too?
From readng the comments it seems as though 2 is as many steps as someone that thinks tariffs are bad can think ahead in a process.
Sad.
They picture the tariff, postulate the first result, then say "number go down, bad", and then thats it, no more thinking or acknowledging how that will cause the next adaptation.
Most dont fathom that fewer, less, and smaller could be of any benefit for any period of time.
Now say it again in English.
@Artopiumcom where needs correction and what argument have you?
@@TransNeingerian One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income.
People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce.
Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce.
Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere.
That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless!
Everyone's hurt.
Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Talk about projection
@austinbyrd1703 when one man doesnt spend, the other man doesnt earn. Taxing consumption is literally more logical and practical than taxing income.
And producing less is fine - especially when you want WHO is producing it to switch. When WHO produces the items changes to someone that produces it cheaper and locally, consumption goes back up.
Continuing to read, youre just backwards.
The point of an economy is NOT "brrrrr, number go up!"
Its to support its citizens. Making sure our subsidized, government dependent families can purchase everything they ever wanted from china and "muh free trade" dont sound like boons.
There should be no better worker, manufacturer, or product better in another country - once you have attempted to be completely self sufficient you only import materials and resources you need or are strategically important.
Getting things from other countries is a LUXURY, not a standard - which is reflected in the higher cost.
We have too many imports at a low cost, creating a dependency that can be used to manipulate the country and creating a community that would rather import foreign labor than invest in itself.
Tariffs allow the US to trim fat while getting paid. Do you guys really think we should be growing and trading at all costs or just to make something a few bucks cheaper?
China uses tariff and other revenue to subsidize sectors so heavily that they can shove trash products down other countries throats and put another country's local competing business on the street while manufacturing inferior goods - cornering the global market, creating waste and pollution and unemployment everywhere but their own. This is not something to copy - they shouldnt be tariffed but immediately embargoed. The US needs to rip that bandaid off, not continue to suckle.
Your judgement on income tax is wrong. Its effects arent equally applicable and distributed, and itd be bad if it was. Nobody in the bottom ~50% should be paying ANY income tax and their shouldnt be any tax loopholes for individuals to navigate each year.
You literally start off the video with a real world example of exactly HOW Trump intends to use tarrifs and how quickly they can be SUCCESSFUL,... and then spend the rest of the video IMAGINING Trump being hurt by tarrifs sometime in the future.
Pure 🤡🌎
Lol good point
Always have to find out the hard way, sadly.
One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income.
People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce.
Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce.
Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere.
That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless!
Everyone's hurt.
Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Yes. Tariffs are bad, that is why the USA continued to sell oil and ammunition to the Axis Powers during WWII so the prices wouldn’t rise during the war.
Unless he gets rid of the IRS and income tax first it will never go away and we will pay ever more.
Tariffs against countries like China that can basically use the population as slave labour and where diplomatic and trade avenues are open and well tested but just making the government there stronger makes complete sense. Against Mexico and Canada not so much, but I think the real problem is that they are circumventing US tariffs then anyone actually wanting a tariff on stuff made in Canada, including Trump...
People are bitching about income tax and how big tariffs need to be to cover 2.5 trillion$ of income taxes yet noone bothers to say a word that US budget last year was like 5 trillion$....
Tariffs will be additional tax on consumers here and income tax will stay. Mark my word
31 comments but only 21 are showing and my comment was disappeared. This is why I trust no one and not this channel either.
It’s usually UA-cam itself hiding all comments which contain certain unknown trigger words
They can usually be seen by changing it to newest first
I don’t dispute the negative impacts of tariffs under a gold standard; however, a fiat system creates an artificial import/export environment based on currency manipulation. Also, as the world reserve currency, our number one export is dollars and not goods and services. We need to import to sustain the dollar status. If we exported more than we imported, what would other countries use as a medium. It couldn’t be the USD because we print the USD. Some call it the world circular economy. In reality it is a game of currency export and devaluation.
Also, Mises doesn’t attack the ethical issues of income tax and the use of gov extortion against its own citizens. NO taxes would be great, but not realistic. So, do we tax people directly via an income tax or indirectly via tariffs.
Off the mark on this. The real problem as always is the type of money!
And endless kvetching about tariffs will not make you great. Our global competitors don't play by Marquess of Queensberry rules.
Boxing fan. 🫡
I think many people knew this policy would ultimately be a bad idea. But they looked to the other side and saw even worse ideas (tax on unrealized gains being a prime example) and realized if there was any sliver of hope that someone would do _something_ to take the edge off, even temporarily, Trump was the best shot they had. I wish it didn’t have to come to this, and things certainly may get worse, but a 5% chance was still greater than 0% when the bets were placed.
Blah blah blah. Tariffs are the answer.
In a VACUUM this would be correct but we are not in a vacuum, we are in a modern society where WE are facing tariffs all over AND the rest of the world wants our consumers.
How about green lighting the tariffs and repealing the 16th amendment?
We don’t care anymore man. We’d actually like to go full on isolationist if it was an option. Whatever it takes to stop being leached off of by multinationals. We can do without Colombian coffee. Things might have to get much worse before they get better.
"We?" Speak for yourself bud
Trump isn’t an isolationist.
@@ethanbunn1948 The upvotes have spoken.
only because the resource is money, you're ok with theft?
You are a communist .
You're completely missing the point: the reason for tariffs is not to "protect" the American worker from foreign "competition" but to put a tax on rich Americans who would rather buy luxury goods made abroad and benefit from cheap labor than invest to have these goods produced in this country by free men who are paid a decent salary.
It's a tax on the would-be slave drivers in our midst, which can then by used to pay for the very army that separates us from the slavery practiced abroad.
Nice try though obfuscating the issue: even if there were fewer regulations and salaries had not been artificially inflated by Unions, we still couldn't "compete" with slave labor - NOR SHOULD WE EVEN WANT TO!!!
Libertarians are what they are: rebranded die-hard Capitalists, wanna-be slave masters who wish they had been born 150 years earlier during the "Gilded Age" so they too could have been "Captains of Industry"...
Not a pretty sight.
I commend your observation of inadequate allocation of domestic resources, and the unfortunate reality of federal government's unholy matrimony with trans-national corporations, which is a genuine source of massive wealth redistribution.
But really, I was astonished by your lack of self-awareness while criticizing protectionists of false realism. I sought economic realism in this monologue, but I mostly found an economic church sermon.
I love the bright minds at Mises (I have a lot to learn from you still!) and am simply disappointed by the appearance of inadequate consideration of the opposing position. I could call it strawmanning, but I don't believe it to be intentional at all. I hope you will investigate which presuppositions you make in your video that may not correlate to reality. There are multiple, and if I had to sum them up nicely, it seems to me to be a kind of naivety about the global neoliberal mixed market and its real-life effects on """free trade""" practice. You also claim, effectively, that any and all resources that could be used for domestic production are being used for other aspects of the market. That claim varies from misleading to flat out incorrect depending on the industry you want to discuss. There is no aspect of this false free trade market that proves we have been true practitioners of creative destruction, that we have truly reached maximum efficiency in the current arrangement. And that is because of the cornerstone of this real life market is not free trade, but foreign actors assuming privileges under the guise of free trade. True free trade does not exist because these actors have used authoritarianism to crush better competitors that we could be using when we stop treating the "Bad players" as honest competitors.
I believe in free market economics with those who wish to conduct free market economics. And unfortunately, the global community has agreed to a bastardization of this concept that has pre-selected winners and losers.
Don't play games where you are designed to be the loser. Make a new game, and find fair players. That is my philosophy.
Free trade arguments come down to a repetition of principles, because their opponents offer nothing but emotion and vagueries. How is anyone supposed to respond to "You're being naive about the global neoliberal (fake label) mixed market"?
Free traders have done the math time and time again to show why free trade still creates a better outcome for one's own country, even when the other countries have tariffs.
Agree generally, but the idea of threatening to hold back military protection would have similar consequences, for example driving once allies to align with China. Not saying this is good or bad, just that there's always consequences when playing hardball
Respectfully, President Trumps words and actions have consistently spoken against him with doom and gloom predictions.
Consistently, he has surprised his critics, often proving them wrong. Regardless, he earned a mandate for change, and he's delivering. Blaming the electorates involvement when billions are spent on manipulation is also a cop out. Leadership made this situation. If they dont like the results, this might be a good time to reflect and update the status quo.
Great video!
What a ridiculous argument. Adding tariffs adds to prices so lowers demand, but ignores that stealing money from consumers via taxes lowers demand as well, as well as destroying jobs means unemployment also lowers demand. Stop cherry picking which pieces you look at. Economics is a complex system, and you need to look at the WHOLE system, which pretty much most economists (including Mises people) don't. You have a particular view, just like Krugman lies for his view.
Libertarians when they try to take away income tax "no actually this isn't the ideal libertarian way!"
Softwood lumber tariffs caused Canadian mills to shut down and move to the U.S.
Good
@AKeyearea8 is that how you think about American factories shutting down to move to Asia?
@@CanPat777 yes
I think these countries will pay the tariff if they get desperate enough to sell thieir product.
There is a difference between free trade and fair trade one we can do and one we cant
For Friederich List and Adam Hamilton it is
Tariffs are theft
Mannnn, it’s like we all fell off a turnip truck. Tariffs are a bargaining tool, either you come to the table and play nice or you’ll get tariffed. Good on him using it on Columbia. Border security is paramount, tariffs if needed to complete this ongoing task
You are wrong, americans will transition from an attention economy to a manufacturing economy
This is incorrect. It assumes that high prices is the worst. Provided that wages are high this isn't a problem.
Ah funny one. But you need to make your sarcasm a bit more obvious.
@fl260 I know that I am a "heretic." I don't approve of sarcasm.
@ Oh no, not a heretic. Just wrong.
@@truecatholic1 One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income.
People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce.
Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce.
Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere.
That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless!
Everyone's hurt.
Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
@@fl260 Prove it. Make a logical argument.
Grazie
People act like ‘free trade’ is some magical force that always leads to prosperity, but the reality is that one-sided free trade-where the U.S. keeps its markets wide open while other countries protect their industries-has gutted American manufacturing. Entire sectors like steel, electronics, and textiles were offshored because foreign competitors enjoyed state subsidies, currency manipulation, and outright protectionism while we played by the ideological rulebook.
There’s a reason ceteris paribus is a key concept in economics-free trade only works when all other factors are equal. But in the real world, they’re not. Pretending otherwise isn’t economics, it’s dogma. A nation that can’t produce its own critical goods is at the mercy of those who can.
Arguments resting on a truly sound base
So many great business people on here spouting their beliefs.
I not sure anyone alive has seen tariffs in action, just alot of fear mongering.
Let the President do his job and lets see what happens because I doubt it can get much worse than it is now.
So put away your crystal balls because it's not your job to run this country its the Presidents job and so far it's going very well.
Look at results not projections
No.
You really don’t understand how this works.
No.
You really don’t understand how this works.
Theories and speculations from the radical left.
1:50 ya lost me (MADtv kenny rogers voice)
Your whole argument is centered on the economy being zero sum
Clinton secured Most Favoured Nation status for China. MFN: Most favoured nation status is given to an international trade partner to ensure non-discriminatory trade between all partner countries of the WTO. A country which provides MFN status to another country has to provide concessions, privileges, and immunity in trade agreements. It is the first clause in the GATT.
There are plenty of things to call trump out on- tariffs is not one of them.
Yes they are. From the perspective of Austrian economics tariffs are possibly the most harmful economic policy he promises. The historical record backs that up.
This is so far the biggest thing to call Trump out on. Trump was supposed to be representing people struggling to get by. And his first tack is to tax the ever-loving crap out of them - people who absolutely cannot afford to pay 50% more for everything they buy just so that they can wave a little American Flag, and give limousine Republicans warm fuzzies. This is as much a luxury belief as any the Progressives held. And if the tariffs weren't enough, Trump is promising to stem the flow of dollars abroad at the same time as he's promising to hike inflation with lower interest rates. Americans have long avoided the worst of our government's inflation by sending our dollars abroad. This combination of policies is going to make inflation absolutely crushing.
L take.
Room temp iq support for said take.
Was this written by AI?
You are literally backwards and wrong on ALL of your points.
@TransNeingerian One man's spending is another man's income. Taxing consumption is practically the equivalent of taxing income.
People produce to consume. If consumption's discouraged, then so is the incentive to produce.
Regardless, tarrifs aren't a mere consumption tax. They target imports. This hinders mutually beneficial trade with the rest of the world, hurting both parties. By raising the price of produce made abroad, we receive fewer goods & services that are better/only produced abroad. Foreign producers lose income income in the process as consumers often switch to domestic produce.
Although this may lead to an expansion of employment & investment within some domestic industries, the consumer (everyone) is left worse off with relatively higher prices &/or worse quality goods/services. The income those employed within those protected sectors receive would be hurt in REAL terms. That human capital would be best utilized elsewhere, where it's actually demanded. Not forced into the service of providing what's readily available elsewhere.
That said, this doesn't even necessarily happen in all cases. Tarrifs also raise production costs for domestic producers, shrinking our productive capacity, often leaving domestic consumer prices higher, & forcing businesses to cut back on costs (like wages). As domestic consumer prices rise within industries heavily reliant upon the importation of producer goods, they can equalize or go beyond the artificially higher price of imported consumer goods. Domestic produce is no longer more attractive than foreign goods in this scenario, & consumers still end up buying overseas regardless!
Everyone's hurt.
Although an income tax is not good by any means, at least its effects are equally applicable & distributed amongst all income earners.
Didnt he say the plan was to tariff and lower taxes?
😊Go Trump 😅
Based
Inb4 this ages poorly
This is ideological and just wrong. There is definitely an art to tarrifs, but unrestrained free trade is a grotesque failure. You literally showed a picture of a real hollowed out town and then said "but theory" ... Tarrifs need to be artful. Also you kicked this off with a demonstrated successful use of a tarrif! I think Trump has the skill to use this tool to our advantage. I get all the theory, but this is iseological thinking and not pragmatic
YES THEY WILL TF YOU TALKING ABOUT
We need to try tariffs. Your BS views is just the same old economic theory that bas been a joke.
This fool went to the actual libertarian party and spoke while doing these policies.
And he convinced the leader to commit party treason and endorse the duopoly. Angela… what is wrong?
What is wrong? The democrats are what's wrong. Some people sold their souls and voted for Trump because The Biden Administration, and all the roaches that used it's shadow for cover, was literally an existential threat.
Richard wolf Michael Hudson
🎉🎉🎉😊
Really? What happened to this channel? Unsubbed. Easy choice. You are missing the point.
why on gods green earth would an anarchist or minarchist be ok with theft?
*Austrian economics channel criticizes tariffs
"What happened to this channel?"
Lmao
The Orange Man Bad and Orange Man Good narratives in the current two party paradigm are truly insufferable.
the channel is good. i'd guess most here are shocked that you were subbed.
Touché
Teleprompter?
Lol 😅
You never played poker did you ? It will reset negotiations and the terms for those. You never go for the full win unless you are sure. . you drain the pot until you tip the scales.
He needs to stop capital being invested abroad
Unless you remove all legal restrictions/regulations on US manufacture, "free trade" functions as an ankle chain on domestic business.
Make an honest choice.
Why not go for the former then?
If you restrict manufacture and then force consumers to buy only that, you are constraining everyone to inferior or more expensive goods and services. Fundamentally everyone must do with less and worse. The only answer lies in reform, we can't tax ourselves into prosperity.