Summary
AP reporter Josh Boak clashed with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt over Trump’s tariff policy, which she called “a tax cut for the American people.”
Boak challenged her claim: “I’m sorry, have you ever paid a tariff? Because I have. They don’t get charged on foreign companies, they get charged on importers,” Boak said.
Leavitt accused him of questioning her economic knowledge and later regretted calling on AP.
The tense exchange highlights ongoing White House-AP tensions, as a federal judge prepares to hear AP’s legal challenge over press access on March 20.
Man people are dumb, for those that still think this is a good idea here is the logic. Tariffs increase the price to bring in goods to a country, the supplier will typically add this additional price increase and charge it back onto the buyer to absorb. Meaning the buyer will see an increase.
Now let’s say Trump is doing this to bring production back to the States, in order to be successful you need to keep costs down as low as possible. This is also the reason alot of countries sent their production overseas because it’s cheaper (wages for example). So in order for the US to even begin competing with production giants like China and keep costs down means workers in the US have to get used to the idea of China style wages and work conditions. Hence Trumps reasoning for giving more power back to companies so that in X years US becomes the new production hub. But the pain to get there is going to be astronomical for the US. Feel free to add or point out any illogical thought processes in my opinion.
The same people saying we can’t raise the minimum wage cuz it will raise the cost of goods are somehow unable to understand this.
Mind you, bringing production back to the US will never lower costs, completely regardless of the fact that labor and environmental compliance is more costly. All tariffs do is set a price floor for imported products that domestic supplies now only have to match.
This comment sounds completely in line with reality lol. Weird reading something like that in these times.
I don’t think it’s just the pain to get there. It’s also painful just being there for the lower class.
Which is everyone below the top 30%. They’re eliminating the middle class.
Top 1% or less, more likely.
Is the real way to stick it to Canada (and others) is set a limit on the amount of product they can export to the US?
Well…
First off, why do you want to stick of to Canada. They, by and large, have been good neighbors to the US. The only people who get angry at Canada are usually Canadians.
That aside, limiting imports limits supply, likely increasing prices for whatever product has been limited. It’s not that different from the tariffs, as far as the consumer is concerned. The big difference is that it sets up a first mover benefit for the exporters/importers (if you get your whole supply across before the cutoff, you get to sell all of it, whereas later sellers might only be able to get part of their supply across. Faster companies benefit from this, to unknown effect.) as opposed to a capital/demand limit from the tariffs. (higher tariffs require higher prices, which often prices out some amount of people who would buy the item. Importers can try to narrow their unit margin or spend capital to sell more slowly. Companies with more capital can find it easier to afford either/both.)
I personally don’t want to stick it to Canada, but tariffs are 1D chess.
Even subsidizing makes more sense.
One of the big issues is that tariffs are protectionist in the same way as a space suit. Yeah, if the outside is hostile, it can protect you, but you better have things inside the suit already working to provide you with everything you need or you’ll end up far, far worse off.
Not really, because that harms the production within the US as well. Produce less means selling less, leas profits means less workers needed.