If we all agree the US consumer bares the brunt of tariffs, why is the default reaction that countries should automatically retaliate? Like if you’re Canada and the US needs your lumber and oil, shouldn’t you just let America shoot its own dick off? - ThreadSky

smtuffy.bsky.social • 37 days ago

If we all agree the US consumer bares the brunt of tariffs, why is the default reaction that countries should automatically retaliate?

Like if you’re Canada and the US needs your lumber and oil, shouldn’t you just let America shoot its own dick off?

Comments

billwinterberg.bsky.social•27 days ago

Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. 👑

mdonaldson86.bsky.social•37 days ago

I suppose it depends how inelastic the demand from that source country is.

iyyiben.bsky.social•37 days ago

Targeted tariffs on things that are more replaceable?

canarydied.bsky.social•27 days ago

Because demand is elastic

groda.eu•37 days ago

I guess the assumption is that a fraction of the US consumers will not be able to pay the extra cost and will therefore stop buying lumber.

rajakorman.bsky.social•37 days ago

Because discussing the exact best way to get the maximum net mileage out of precision-targeted retaliatory tariffs through the intersection of census-tract, district boundary, SIC code, and election result is probably a really fun job for a certain kind of nerd.

cobrollins.bsky.social•37 days ago

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

Are you gonna just let someone violate a trade agreement with no consequences?

gregr44.bsky.social•37 days ago

You selectively tariff products from states that support trump that have substitutes from non US sources. For example Harley Davidson.
And, maybe put an export tax on things that the Americans really want, like oil. (not easily substituted)

extramedium666.bsky.social•37 days ago

Just be selective go at autos where you have viable alternatives (Japan, Korea, Germany, China EVs)

markclaret.bsky.social•37 days ago

I mean. I would probably add 10% to thoat countries quote. But yeh

colintoal.bsky.social•37 days ago

The tariffs are about creating black markets and "pay for play" special exemptions for individual businesses.

hudsonrivercroc.bsky.social•37 days ago

Fair point

carl-spackler.bsky.social•27 days ago

I think they are trying to do that? It seems like other countries have targeted (or said they will target) specific companies (e.g. Tesla) or red state industries and try to pick and choose goods with readily available substitutes.

markscrivens.bsky.social•37 days ago

We are considering this option, yes.

shedcapital.bsky.social•37 days ago

I’ve wondered the same thing. Why not throw an export tax on instead of reciprocal tariffs? Seems like gamesmanship is the only answer.

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

The plan is to target specific things not general tariffs

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

Like I assume you want the US to feel some pain for it's actions that hurt you and violate the trade deal you have with them

colintoal.bsky.social•37 days ago

Yes. But if the US targets Autoparts for example, Canada should respond with 50% export tax on oil and 100% export tax on electricity until the tariffs on Autoparts are lifted.

shedcapital.bsky.social•37 days ago

But that doesn’t prevent Canada from responding as it sees fit. If the lever to hurt trump is consumer prices, why not attack consumer prices?

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

Well I think reducing demand for products from Trump areas like bourbon is politically effective as would making energy more expensive

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

Export taxes are paid by Canadian companies so levying them needs to be targeted carefully

shedcapital.bsky.social•37 days ago

Make Bourbon Impossible to Buy in Canada is actually good.

Opinion changed

deus01.bsky.social•37 days ago

Gotta figure LCBO is one of the biggest buyers so them stopping would be painful

deathswap1.bsky.social•37 days ago

Probably because you can't let a US President just tearing up carefully negotiated agreements on a whim?

friendishly.bsky.social•37 days ago

Thank You!!!

samuelmarclowe.bsky.social•37 days ago

Because consumer impact is spread thinly across the economy, whereas impact on third country exporter is acute. So you retaliate by targeting politically sensitive sectors in the hope they lobby Trump to stop doing his tariffs.

ryanphurley.bsky.social•37 days ago

From an economics perspective, @smtuffy.bsky.social is right, trade is good and cutting off your own makes you worse off. But given that Trump caves pretty easily, game theory probably leads to your response.

samuelmarclowe.bsky.social•37 days ago

E.g. last time the EU hit loads of products from Kentucky because Mitch McConnell

riverdaleboy.bsky.social•37 days ago

Haven't touched bourbon since Merrick Garland. Still won't. On the bright side, Canadian is just as effective and a lot cheaper. Some are quite good.

smtuffy.bsky.social•27 days ago

Seems like the EU agrees?

ascotrose.bsky.social•27 days ago

The EU has a plan in place. Like China, they intend to target our tech companies, which represent most of the capitalization of our stock market now. There was a big spread in the Financial Times on this recently.

ascotrose.bsky.social•27 days ago

In my opinion, the best retaliation would be to form new trading blocs that exclude the US. That involves a lot of initial overhead and a supply chain shock, however.

welloldstem.bsky.social•37 days ago

Been asking this for a bit but no one wants to clarify.

ersquare.bsky.social•37 days ago

Because it’s even funnier if the bullet ricochets and ends in their backside too?

ravi711.bsky.social•37 days ago

1) It looks terrible domestically for a politician.

2) The hope is starting a trade war will ultimately all remove the tariffs. You are playing an international game of chicken.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply