Started By
Message

re: CBO: Trump’s Tariffs Could Slash Deficit by $4 Trillion

Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:51 am to
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:51 am to
quote:

This isnt new money in the system, its just re-distribution of wealth.


Exactly. It's just a tax. Like any other tax.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people can fail to comprehend that the amount of money in the system is the amount of money in the system.

I swear I guess they think that money just appears out of thin air.

I don't have any objection to instituting or raising a tax in order to pay down the deficit—other than the obvious objection that we also have to control the spending...otherwise we're just giving the government more money for them to waste—but why can't people understand that that is all this is?

Why do they have to act like Trump magically made money appear out of nowhere to pay down the deficit? (Which probably won't happen anyway because we'll just spend it.)

If we announced it as a tax and also signed legislation that mandated that 100% of the money raised by the tariffs had to go to pay down the deficit, I'd be far less critical. I'd still think there were better ways that tariffs to meet that goal, but if we were calling it what it was and guaranteeing that it would be used for the stated purpose, I'd let it go.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:52 am to
quote:

He presumes 100% of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers.

Which has not happened yet.
Seemingly, at least partially true.

LINK



quote:

Most Impacted Firms Have Increased Prices, Many Plan to Again

Some firms remain in “wait and see” mode as uncertainty around tariff policy and input prices persists. However, most impacted respondents have begun passing along tariff costs to their customers by raising prices. Of the roughly half of firms that reported direct tariff impacts, nearly 60 percent of them have already increased their prices due to tariffs, and most of these firms plan to raise prices again. In contrast, about 25 percent of firms reported that they have been impacted by tariffs and plan to raise prices but have not yet. For example, a South Carolina transportation manufacturer plans to pass on tariff costs but has not yet due to concerns about demand for their product. As they explained, “Tariff cost transfer to customers is creating the largest earnings uncertainty in our 2026 business plan.” Fourteen percent of respondents who reported being affected by tariffs were unsure about whether to adjust prices.


This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 9:53 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476287 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:53 am to
quote:

I cannot for the life of me understand how people can fail to comprehend that the amount of money in the system is the amount of money in the system.


Go read BCreed1's post on page 3. He uses an extremely high margin example to make it seem logical that foreign companies will eat the tariffs (or most of them). That's why they believe it.
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15962 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:53 am to
quote:

Thats a useless stat. The point is to stop buying that product made overseas. You don't HAVE to buy that same priduct.


And this is how Capitalism dies
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
22997 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:56 am to
Fantastic article, bookmarked for later use

And as I've been saying in all these threads, this is just what we're seeing from larger firms that can weather the storm for now. Small businesses with much tighter margins can't. They'll just shut down and the huge corps will take their space. That's not going to show up on the price tag immediately, but it will eventually.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115204 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:58 am to
quote:

Seemingly, at least partially true.


So, not 100%, which was (and is) my point.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:00 am to
quote:

So, not 100%, which was (and is) my point.
You should read the survey.
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
19829 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:01 am to
quote:

Every dollar you siphon out of the system actually comes out of the system...it's not like Schrodinger's Cat that comes out if the observer wants it to but stays in if the observer wants it to.

It comes out in some way. Either higher prices, wage stagnation, the loss of jobs, loss of earnings in the market. You can't pull a rabbit out of a hat and the rabbit still be in the hat.
very true.

and that is both the real-world math and the gamble, and it is a gamble, that the Trump admin is making.

But what if GDP does grow and CPI/PPI is flat? While what you are saying is true, it is only one of several prognostications/scenarios that mighty yet play out.

Because there's one variable in your math not accounted for. Everyone assume "buy American" means a US company on US soil. But they've tweaked that and a foreign company can manufacture on US soil in this case. There's your capital entropy and jobs (with wages being TBD) right there.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476287 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Everyone assume "buy American" means a US company on US soil. But they've tweaked that and a foreign company can manufacture on US soil in this case. There's your capital entropy and jobs (with wages being TBD) right there.

But even this scenario still relies on higher prices paid by consumers.

Those higher prices mean redistributing spending from other economic areas to these producers.

If there is less money circulating on more efficient, productive economic areas (like tech), then that's going to lead to a decrease in GDP and standard of living. We're basically going to use government to redistribute spending from more productive areas (that can scale much more efficiently and expansively) to less productive areas (inefficient manufacturing). I don't see a way how this can be a net positive.

*ETA: and I intentionally left this out of my initial response, but smaller GDP and fewer tariffs means a lot less tax revenue for fedgov.
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 10:09 am
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:09 am to
quote:

Go read BCreed1's post on page 3. He uses an extremely high margin example to make it seem logical that foreign companies will eat the tariffs (or most of them). That's why they believe it.


In addition to completely destroying the "'Muh tariffs to bring back manufacturing to 'Merca" narrative, the mechanism for that scenario happening would be for the importer to negotiate a lower price with the wholesaler/exporter to offset the tariffs.

Let's say they actually agree to that. First of all, there's a limit to how much lower they would go...maintaining market share when you're just breaking even or losing money is usually not something companies are willing to do...not for any significant length of time, anyway. So depending on the margin and the tariff you certainly can't count on that working across the board.

Secondly, what would stop the importer from taking the lower price from the exporter and still charging Americans a higher price and (explicitly or implicitly) blaming it on the tariffs?

It seems like the higher the margin, the greater the chances that would happen.

I import your baseballs that used to cost $5 each and I used to sell for $8 each, but now because of the tariffs I'm not buying them from you for anything over $4 each and I'm going to sell them for $9 each because people expect prices to go up anyway due to these tariffs. And that last part is none of your business, baseball supplier.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:11 am to
quote:

But even this scenario still relies on higher prices paid by consumers.

Those higher prices mean redistributing spending from other economic areas to these producers.

If there is less money circulating on more efficient, productive economic areas (like tech), then that's going to lead to a decrease in GDP and standard of living. We're basically going to use government to redistribute spending from more productive areas (that can scale much more efficiently and expansively) to less productive areas (inefficient manufacturing). I don't see a way how this can be a net positive.


This.
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
19829 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:12 am to
quote:

Everyone assume "buy American" means a US company on US soil. But they've tweaked that and a foreign company can manufacture on US soil in this case. There's your capital entropy and jobs (with wages being TBD) right there.
quote:

But even this scenario still relies on higher prices paid by consumers.
how?

there's no evil tariffs if made on US soil, no matter the ownership of the company?
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:14 am to
quote:

But they've tweaked that and a foreign company can manufacture on US soil in this case. There's your capital entropy and jobs (with wages being TBD) right there.


Also, why in the world would they do that?

The average factory worker in the US makes $17 an hour. In China it's $6 an hour, and in Mexico it's around $4 an hour.

I assume that the cost of real estate/construction, etc. is also proportionately less in those places.

So why would a foreign company locate HERE to manufacture? Why would they locate in one of the most expensive countries on planet earth to manufacture in?

The tariffs would have to be really high to make it worth avoiding them like that, and all it would do is ensure that the products were really expensive for consumers.

So we get a bunch of $17 an hour jobs, but we also get baseballs that used to cost $8 and now they cost $12.

How is that trade-off worth it?
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 10:18 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476287 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:15 am to
quote:

how?


How else do we move the manufacturing back home?

The reason why it's not here now is because the price is necessary to make these profitable or too high for the market when we can buy it cheaper made overseas. The point of tariffs in this equation is to to artificially raise the price of the foreign Goods so that domestic manufacturers can offer similar or lower priced domestically produced options.

How do you get the domestic manufacturing without the higher prices?
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:16 am to
quote:

How do you get the domestic manufacturing without the higher prices?


Answer. You can't.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298383 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:16 am to
quote:



there's no evil tariffs if made on US soil, no matter the ownership of the company?


US producers will raise prices regardless of whether its made here or there.

Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
70955 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:20 am to
quote:

It can look like cancelling expansion plans (which costs the economy jobs), freezing raises and promotions (which causes wage stagnation), laying people off


We're talking about foreign organizations here right?
Posted by Westbank111
Armpit of America
Member since Sep 2013
4592 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:22 am to
Why slash the deficit?

Why not anish the Fed & return every single damn tax payer their money for the past decades and really make a difference In the country.

Or while there at it and always printing money for transgender shows and indoctrination abroad, just go ahead and print a measily $160Million and give $1M to every tax payer, would get most out of debt and make a real difference in the country.

frick THE DEFICIT
frick THE FED
AM& EVEN MORESO, frick THE SLIMY WVIL PRICKS THAT CONTROL THE FED!

Why isn’t there more uproar about the Federal Reaerve being the most damaging crime this country has ever fell victim to.

It’s the ROOT OF 99% of our problems.

A never ending slush fund to promote the demise of the country and also turning the world inside out.

frick the FED!
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26419 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:28 am to
quote:

Thats a useless stat. The point is to stop buying that product made overseas. You don't HAVE to buy that same priduct.



Tariffs don't affect domestic products, produce and services.

The South back in the early 70's had hundreds of textile mills and related factories. It made sense given the Souths cotton production.

When the tariffs on Indian clothes and textiles were dropped all of those Southern mills vanished seemingly overnight.

This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 10:45 am
Posted by PaperTiger
Ruston, LA
Member since Feb 2015
26616 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:31 am to
quote:

And this is how Capitalism dies


Foreign made, higher priced items have to re-adjust their pricing to American made, lower priced products (hypothetically speaking that US would lower their rates and not go up)

If foreign companies want to avoid tariffs, move the manufacturing to the US. If we were banning so said companies from moving here, I would agree with you. But we arent.

How is that "capitalism dying"? There is still price competition.
Jump to page
Page First 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 11Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram