re: Study finds that foreign firms paid 4% of tariff burden in 2025, while Americans ate 96%

quote:

---

If you read their details, its due to discounts to dealers in the US so they can then use that discount to pay the tariffs.

So when they say American companies pay for it they do........with the money the foreign suppliers give them.

Simple question, if American consumers would gladly pay more for a product......why havent all the companies raised the prices 100%, apparently some of you people with no knowledge of price elasticity, and less of foreign trade.....would gladly pay it

---

Let me make sure I’m understanding your argument correctly before responding.

As I read it, your claim is not that tariffs imposed no additional costs, but that they did not materially raise consumer prices because foreign manufacturers absorbed the tariffs through margin compression, dealer incentives, or internal discounts. In that view, since consumers did not broadly experience the predicted price spikes, the practical effect of tariffs on prices was minimal or nonexistent, and claims about tariffs “raising prices” are overstated or misleading.

Is that your position? If not, please correct anything I have wrong.

quote:

---

Is it your assertion that tariffs have not affected the price of goods?

---

I'm confident that tariffs may have affected the price of some goods. Tariffs have not caused the massive price increases that the tariff goobers here predicted.

quote:

---

Anecdotal experience means frick all on an anonymous message board. The question isn’t what you or I think we paid for coffee, it’s whether tariffs measurably affected prices. That’s not a "how do I feel" question. There’s far more reliable, publicly available data on import costs, producer prices, and consumer prices than any collection of personal stories on a message board. If the claim is that tariffs didn’t raise prices, the argument lives or dies on that data, not on who remembers their grocery bill differently.

---

so in other words you can't, i can't either and i make a lot more money than you so i buy more stuff.

quote:

---

The argument isn’t “Are tariffs good or bad?”

---

Did you read the study? The first and last sentences are

quote:

---

The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal. Americans are footing the bill.

---

They are clearly framing tariffs, as a whole, as a net negative to Americans.

I went ahead and read the study, here is what stood out to me:

quote:

---

Using shipment-level data covering over 25 million transactions valued at nearly $4 trillion, we find near-complete pass-through of tariffs to US import prices

---

I'm not sure how they are concluding, from shipment-level data, how much is felt at the consumer/retail level. The study doesn't make that linkage, its an assumption that is not highlighted as such. They rely on a previous study for this link that is specific to 2018-2019 trade with China exclusively.

That is, as long as they have this study, they can make this linkage as much as people are willing to accept it.

quote:

---

This revenue surge is the direct consequence of higher tariff rates applied to a (shrinking) volume of imports.

---

The last part, the shrinking volume of imports, is not discussed in detail, but absolutely a policy objective that could result in lower overall prices and/or positive impact on the US economy.

quote:

---

For the period January 2024 through November 2025, the data comprise approximately 25.6 million single-product shipments with a total declared value of nearly $4 trillion.

---

Note that much of this data occurred prior to tariff's being in effect. The study makes no distinction of trends in that time period or any bifurcation of data to separate the period in which the tariffs were or weren't in effect, which seems intuitive if analyzing the $200B increase and how much of it was paid by importers.

They did specifically use case studies from Brazil and India, with sound reasoning (they had widespread tariffs to most products that were steep increases in terms of %). However, for Brazil, hey make zero mention of how much the volume of trade was actually influenced by tariffs before concluding their assumption is correct. Moving onto India

quote:

---

But India offers something Brazil does not: detailed export customs records capturing FOB (Free on Board) prices at the port of departure.

---

They mentioned previously that they had a primary dataset, which appeared to be uniform and include all import data. This is from India's side it seems. They make no mention if they tied this data back to the primary dataset, and were unclear about the trends which I would assume would be easily identifiable.

quote:

---

If Indian exporters were absorbing part of the US tariff, we would expect to see their US-bound prices fall relative to shipments destined for other markets (Europe, Canada, Australia) that did not face tariff increases. This is precisely what we test.

---

This does not seem like the most accurate test. Why would they not test the trend to the US, rather than introducing global economics? If you have that information, it would be the easiest way to determine the price trend, rather than looking at trends for other countries (while admitting changes in the factors influencing price equilibrium).

quote:

---

The volume effects, however, were substantial. Export values to the US fell by approximately 18–24% relative to other destinations, and quantities fell by similar magnitudes. Indian exporters responded to US tariffs by shipping less, not by cutting prices. They adjusted on the quantity margin, not the price margin.

---

And there it is, the other side of the tariff equation that is being completely ignored. What did the US buy instead, and how much did it cost?

Remember, the study basically uses the assumption that tariffs are passed on (they use a previous study) to consumers, they don't actually determine this on their own. What did the US buy instead? Were they subject to as high of tariffs? Said differently, are Americans paying more or less for the exact same products before and after tariffs were implemented last year? Isn't that something you would like to know before their first conclusion that

quote:

---

tariffs are a tax on Americans.

---

They never make that linkage and it should not be the primary conclusion, because that isn't what they were actually testing.

I could go on, but my stance remains - this does not offer much insight, and seeks to substantiate a narrowly specific view (import prices did not fall, net of tariffs) to project on what is really a separate population (the increase in tariff revenue).

You can read the conclusions and tell that is exactly where they started. It's like 10 pages, it is not a robust study.

quote:

---

Never been my argument.

---

So what's the problem with what I said? My gasoline cost for my commute has gone down $20 a week, likely $10 for my wifes commute. That 1500-2000 a year will go a long way toward offsetting any tariff increases for me. My 401K is up HUGELY since April 2025. I'm way better off today.

quote:

---

So what's the problem with what I said? My gasoline cost for my commute has gone down $20 a week, likely $10 for my wifes commute. That 1500-2000 a year will go a long way toward offsetting any tariff increases for me. My 401K is up HUGELY since April 2025. I'm way better off today.

---

I don’t have a problem with what you said. This was your original question that led to the exchange:

quote:

---

What items have you seen that increased in price due to the tariffs?

---

After receiving several responses addressing that question, you pivoted to your personal situation. Lower gas costs, a higher 401K balance, and being better off overall. I pointed out that those are anecdotal experiences and do not answer the question you asked, at which point you responded by calling me a “stupid sumbitch” or some shite.

My point was simple. Your personal outcomes, especially on an anonymous message board, are not evidence that tariffs did not increase prices on any goods. They are just descriptions of how you are doing. If you took offense to that, it wasn’t an insult. It was a clarification about what does and does not constitute evidence.

quote:

---

Your point was to be an arse, on an anonymous message board and we both know it.

---

Yet it was you that responded with multiple ad homs, devoid of substance. Not me.

quote:

---

Why would that have anything to do with inflation?

---

because if the cost of the tariffs are all being passed on to American consumers, then inflation would be rising. That's the whole argument against the tariffs, it will cause inflation. It's not causing inflation, so either the foreign firms are bearing a much bigger part of the cost than this study is saying or Americans are abandoning imports at a much higher rate than anyone understands

quote:

---

Yet it was you that responded with multiple ad homs, devoid of substance. Not me.

---

That would be called a counter punch....