_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
I wrote a comment explaining Tariffs on a Fox News YouTube video a few weeks back, and the entire reply chain was people arguing with eachother about how tariffs work because "Trump said it's a tax on other countries, so that's how they work"
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
429 points (99.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5538 readers
1544 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources β for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. BrΓΌck on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"He was told the other countries pay the tariffs", by a bunch of liars and he believed the liars.
I recently learned that almost 1 in 5 Americans are illiterate.
How many Americans do you think are reasonably well educated, so that they would understand somewhat complex issues like tariffs? Or could seek out information if they didn't understand?
Im still surprised by that , the quality of education in my country is low but holly fuck im stunned by the lack of education in the states
Where was this posted?
Of course the employee is wrong, but the OOP isn't tackling the argument in a really productive way. There's an opportunity to meet the employee where they are.
People caught in the right wing noise machine always seem to understand that businesses pass on business taxes to the consumer. So, if other countries were paying the tariffs, why wouldn't they pass those costs on?
Yeah, whenever people say "the other country pays" (well, before this election cycle) what they meant was that the higher price would encourage shoppers to buy domestic this the other country "pays" because they get less revenue. Prices would go up either way though because of the domestic goods were cheaper they would've already been the first pick. The thing about taxes is that it doesn't really matter if it's placed on the supply or demand side, the end effect is the same. Sure, it will feel different and there might be different short term effects, but it's the same regardless. The price is higher and government gets a cut.
So I don't really understand why people believe that even if the foreign country/company was paying the tariff why people would think prices stay the same. As if other countries are just going to get a 25% fee and not increase prices by ~25% to cover that.
The most charitable argument for Trump would be that foreign businesses reduce their prices such that the price paid by their US customers is the same as before the tariffs to remain competitive in the US market, but I think most MAGAs literally just never thought about it.
Man, this isn't even "doing your research" it's just knowing what very basic words mean.
I bet a coworker $20 that "tariff" and "tax" were synonyms. Motherfucker refused to pay up, calling merriam-webster.com, thesauraus.com, wikipedia etc. "fake news".
Your mistake was referencing a woketionary.
I would've made you pay him. Every tariff is a tax but not every tax is a tariff. Of course your actual point still stands.
That's not what a synonym is.
My point exactly. The bet was about whether "tariff" and "tax" are synonymous. They aren't synonymous if they describe different things, even if one of those things is a subset of the other. (This is complicated a bit by the fact that synonymity is context-dependent so in some contexts they can be synonymous. I'm assuming a general context.)
To give a different example, every iPhone is a smartphone but not every smartphone is an iPhone. The two terms aren't synonymous except in specific contexts like when discussing the inventory of an Apple store.
In a general context, I would argue that the bet is lost β tariffs are taxes but taxes encompass more than just tariffs. The definition of synonymity is not fulfilled.
The actual point of the bet, namely to illustrate that tariffs are paid by people in the country that raised them (because they are taxes on imported goods and services), remains valid.
It's anti-intellectualism.
You don't need to understand any of it, you can just ask people who spend their lives researching this stuff.
Hire smarter employees.
Those cost more, and with the tariffs I doubt he can afford it
Isn't this the same debate as to how one country can (or cannot) force another country to pay for a random construction project that isn't in anyones interest (that wall)?
It's not like the concept is beyond (basically, 99.9+%) anyones cognitive abilities. It's just how ads (the science behind it is plentiful, it's a giant business sector) work on human brains.
God damn! This is so simple a third grade student can understand it. The US government has no authority to tax foreign governments, citizens or businesses. They can only tax American citizens and businesses. So Trump puts a 50% tariff (Import Tax) on tea from England. The tea costs $5.00. The person or corporation who imports it, pays the $5.00 cost plus the $2.50 tariff. The US government gets the $2.50. In this case, Trump and Musk are probably just stealing it.
You forgot that the tea now costs $7.50 which is paid by the consumer. The tea company sure as shit isnt taking a 50% loss to sell tea now. So the american consumer pays the tariff. Shitler and goebbels pocket the 25% that comes out of an american workers paycheck.
Or, we can hold the fucking media accountable for telling blatant lies about the impacts of tariffs.
Fox News got around that by claiming they're entertainment, not news.
Per their own arguments in court, no reasonable person would consider Fox News to be factual.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Fire all MAGAs for taxifs.
The OP is battling against what Faux Newz, Dipshit Donnie, and other right-wing propagandist shitrags are telling his employee, all which the employee takes as indesputable truth. If he can override that much brainwashing he can convince anyone of anything.
But the guys in OP, they don't turn on daddy Trump. It can't be that they were lied to, then they'd have to do something alien to them like introspection. No, it must be...an honest mistake? Honestly have no idea how they'd justify it internally.
"The Big Lie" is what Sanders is calling it.
How many "big lies" are we up to now?
How does the saying about selling a lie go?
Well, a lie can be half around the world before the truth even has its boots on.
That's because the lie's boots have already been licked clean.
Three liars makes a tiger
and every one of the millions who ~~were~~are just as dumb, will forget the lessons learned well before the next election and vote for it all over again.
nice of you to assume there's gonna be a NEXT election.
...next election?
You know, the one Trump wins with 106% of the totaled votes.
To be fair, economics is not intuitive. Half of it is built out of unicorn dust and human imagination. How else would bitcoin even exist? For those of you who are economists and love the money side, vs the behavioral side, thatβs great, we need people like you to explain it to the rest of us.
I work with a real system that will still exist no matter what happens with politics or money, so it takes work, for me. That said, tariffs and inflation are not difficult concepts provided you simply take the time to learn.
I know someone who lost their job in December due to tariffs anticipation, and they were not alone in that group of layoffs. The effects are there even if you fail to learn the reasons.
Half of it is built out of unicorn dust and human imagination.
Economics is applied psychology at scale hiding behind the idea of math and using "businesses" and "markets" to depersonalize their findings and play pretend at describing natural laws. All it's really describing is the behavior of people, and a wildly nonrepresentative subset of people at that.
I'm of average intelligence so if I can understand it, so can they.
For extra sad - what is economical is more intuitive bcs it's not just a human skill, it's a skill nature forces all species into in one way or the other.
'Economics' (the human science) however adds so many extra steps, scales, and logistics that is def not immediately intuitive (even in the simple cases when it is).
In both cases there is a certain element of future uncertainty so risk management is essential.
It's not that complicated that when a company with thin margins has to pay a tax, they have to pay it on to consumers.
Your finance department doesn't care about the difference between a more expensive part due to scarcity vs a more expensive part due to a tax.
Some people are just dumb. It doesn't help that our education system is designed to produce worker bees and not educated citizens.
Worker bees don't even get to have sex with the queen-president!! :'''(
Are the male bee drones the cabinet circle?
Male bees have sex once mid flight and die.
I don't understand how they think this works
A lot of them think that the country with the tarrifs levied against them needs to pay the country they are exporting to to sell the goods there like a "If you want to do business here" tax on the country exporting.
But in all honesty even if it did work that way, the exporting country would just jack the prices up to cover it. The end result for US citizens would be the same.
But in all honesty even if it did work that way, the exporting country would just jack the prices up to cover it. The end result for US citizens would be the same.
This. It doesn't matter whether the exporter or importer is payign the tariff, the result is the same - it increases the cost of goods, and that cost is going to get passed down the line, plus margin.
I think it actually can't work that way at all if he does that. Theoretically, it'll work upto 100% tarrifs but it's way worse.
Imagine mr T says 100% tarrifs on product X, that costs $20.
If consumers pay it then it just costs $40 and it's over. If the original country pays it then they have to pay $20 to sell $20 product, which is not profitable at all. But if they jack the price to $40, then they have to pay $40, again not profitable. So this system only works for smaller % tarrifs so that they can raise the price to cover that.
Suppose you have $2 profit (10%) on $20 item, and 20% ($4) tariffs. You can't pay more than your profit, so you increase the price from 20 to 26, now you have 30% ($8) profit, you pay 20% ($5) tarrifs and get total 10% profit. So you see with 20% tariff you get 30% increase in cost. So this would work worse than consumers directly paying 20% tariffs.