he has the rest of this year and two more. sounds like he can handle a month or two.
Even if it is a month, that's only 58 countries he can try to raise tariffs on. Traditional use of Section 301 takes much longer, so we might end up seeing a handful of countries that get universal tariffs.
i'm saying this is now an additional tariff on top of those tariffs, which will be replaced, as he has literally already said.
Except the Section 122 tariffs will only be at 15%. That additional tariff is merely at the same or less level than the IEEPA tariffs. Replacement will not come automatically after 150 days if the plan is to replace them with Section 301 tariffs. I would see at most, one or two countries that will have a higher import tax applied to their goods after a 5 month period. Americans will on the whole, now pay less to obtain imported goods.
because there is no random exemption to tariffs for some mom and pop shop. i'm not going to defend a mom and pop shop that can't import more chinesium dude.
So in order to punish megacorps, small American businesses and consumers have to pay a higher price to obtain goods that they do not domestic alternatives to. If we want import substitution industrialization, we need subsidization of industrial manufacturing and purchase of technology, not just tariffs.
obviously i mean that they're businesses in other countries that thrive off of their goods being imported. what the fuck do you think a business that provides imports to another country is doing?
I was confused by the grammar. I agree with your statement here when it comes to flooding markets with cheap crap that does have domestic alternatives.
i never said it would be instant, or that it would be painless. unfortunately, when an infection spreads deep into a limb, the remedy isn't pleasant.
I want to discuss the Forbes article you posted. Archive here for others:
https://archive.is/8dHNQ
But when you look specifically at tariff impact, the picture is clear: The bad currently outweighs the good. Slightly more companies (18%) are reporting losses as are reporting gains (15%). And the scale of those losses far exceeds the upside. Manufacturers seeing tariff-related declines report an average hit of (-16%), nearly double the average 9% bump among those benefiting. Meanwhile, reshoring has gained some ground, but slowly. Nine percent of manufacturers have brought back production to the U.S., more than double the level in 2021 (4%).
While we have seen some growth, the losses have offset the gains. The unpredictability of Trump's implementation and changes over the months with the IEEPA tariff disrupted supply chains, creating uncertainty in the market. The article came out in November, 7 months from when the Liberation Day IEEPA tariffs were initiated. The 5 months of the Section 301 tariffs may see similar trends but with more stability since Trump can't threaten to raise them on a whim.
The bottom line: tariffs are reshaping the industry, not yet revitalizing it. But manufacturers aren’t resigned to the imbalance. Nearly a quarter say they expect tariffs to drive sales growth in the future, reflecting the same optimism that defines the sector even in these unsettled times.
I like that there is a positive to the tariffs, that it is partially influencing reshoring. We may be able to tap into natural resource extraction, as the MSN article you posted showed that we have plenty of resources in-country. The problem is that the tariffs alone is bad policy. Not bad politics, bad policy.
The President seems to believe that the foreign countries pay the import tax, when you and I both know that businesses and consumer that want foreign goods pay that import tax. The President also believes that simply tariffs alone is sufficient to increase manufacturing. However, historical industrial development shows that making imports more expensive does not immediately translate to new manufacturing plants being established. The industry is merely adapting, which has some growth, but not the gains we want to see.
As I pointed out above, we need subsidies. We need to purchase equipment we currently can't manufacture domestically. We need market stability so investors are willing to risk their money on building up the manufacturing industry.
The tariffs have, primarily, increased government revenue by a few hundred billion dollars. A small gain in established manufactures as some businesses look to them for goods that they normally obtained overseas.
Tariffs are landing unevenly across the supply chain, and smaller manufacturers—particularly those tied closely to large OEMs who’ve cut orders—are absorbing the hardest blows. Some are reporting losing as much as 40% of their revenue.
Tariffs like many consumption focused taxes, end up harming those operating on thin margins and can't easily adapt to higher prices. We could have policies directly targeted at mega corporations. American companies that don't have a supermajority of American citizens as their employees should be given hefty fines. Companies that operate at a certain size pay a tax based on how much they import versus purchased domestically. However, the administration seems to believe that merely the increased cost of an import tax is enough to encourage domestic product.
That is not cleaning an infection from a wound. This is bloodletting without treating the infected tissue.
