Hacker News Reader

Comment by mooreds | Hacker News Reader

Both clauses are false?

"Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens" is undeniably true.

"Tariffs are a tax on imports. They're typically charged as a percentage of the transaction price that a buyer pays a foreign seller. Say an American retailer buys 100 garden umbrellas from China for $5 apiece, or $500. The U.S. tariff rate for the umbrellas is 6.5 percent for umbrellas. The retailer would have to pay a $32.50 tariff on the shipment, raising the total price from $500 to $532.50."

- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-tariffs-and-how-would-...

The latter clause is a matter of second order effects that people can disagree with.

View on HN

You proved my point. Umbrella seller will sell fewer of those China-imported umbrellas. In comes African umbrella maker for $4 apiece.

Actually, if the African umbrella maker could make a profit at $4, they would already be doing that, pre-tariff.

So they are more likely selling at $5.15 (or some other higher number), which means that the US consumer pays an extra 15 cents per umbrella.

That 15 cents is additional and what people refer to as a "tax", though it isn't a traditionally levied tax.

You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for. China's $5 umbrellas are heavily subsidized by the government (and mostly through debt and near zero environmental controls). African umbrella companies can now sell at $5.15 without subsidies, setting the actual market value for an umbrella without the Chinese government causing an over-investment in umbrellas through the market distortion of (grossly unfair) subsidies.

> You make the perfect point that fair trade advocates push for.

Totally get it. There's a line between a country being good at making a product through "natural" causes (having a climate to grow grapes for wine) and the government subsidizing the production of wine because they want a wine growing industry. Where that line is depends on a lot of actors, but some things fall on one side of the line and others on the other.

However, for the end consumer in the importing country, they win if the government of the exporting industry wants to subsidize wine production. The consumer gets cheaper wine.

Now the argument for fair trade is that the local producers of wine will be hurt. And I get that (especially when you are talking about job losses and/or loss of strategic capability around food production or technology).

But overall the consumer in the importing country wins. If China wants to give dollar bills to the American consumer for umbrellas, why shouldn't the consumer take them?

I see what you're saying, but there's one further point you should address. It's not the Chinese free market that's giving the US consumers $5 bills for wine, it's the Chinese government. So consumers are enticed to buy wine which they might not have in a market distortion, which hurts not just US wine producers, but Chinese beer producers who compete in the tasty alcoholic treats export market. Maybe a short term gain for US consumers who enjoy their nightly reds and whites, but in the long term, market development will be unnaturally stymied.

> market development will be unnaturally stymied.

I understand where you are coming from, but markets are created by the rules of the government. Some governments (The Netherlands, CA) say that selling marijuana is OK. Some say that it is ok for some people to buy marijuana (medical) and others can't. Some US states say that no one can buy marijuana. Which is the "natural" market?

I understand that you are saying that the Chinese government is causing distortions and there is a fairer way to "trade" but that's something for the Chinese state and political actors to decide. This is the same as the way that the USA has decided that trucks are different than cars and should have a different set of import limitations--in both cases this is a political consideration.

Very good metaphor and I see what you’re saying. And I’m convinced you are correct now. The only thing I’d add is people would still have to weigh the indirect costs of the Chinese wine which might have an emotional cost from supporting economic injustice or lax environmental laws. But the data is pretty clear that nearly zero consumers care about this and would be better off with their $5 (Chinese) chuck.

Your comment just made my day. This was a perfect description.

Markets are not perfectly efficient - this is why arbitrage exists.

It likely will take some event, some slack, some inelegance for a business or entrepreneur to notice that the delta between that $5/umbrella and where they can figure out how to deliver it for $4 is worth spending time and attention on.

Markets are not perfectly efficient. Markets are perfectly imperfect.

He didn't prove your point. You're not making sense. You agree with him except for the last point. The parent comment said:

Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, and only causes increased prices and unemployment.

and as far as I can tell you believe:

Tariffs against China are actually a tax on the American citizens, which causes increased prices and (eventually?) a shift to a different producer.

but that's not the argument you're making.

No he hasn't. You haven't proved that African umbrellas even exist for $4. If they did, we would have been buying them instead of the $5 chinese umbrella long ago, or at least the people who didnt want chinese umbrellas would have supported them.

Are there other locations in the world that has either the current capacity or the ability to ramp up to that quickly and cheaply to match China's current production levels? Supply doesn't come out of nowhere, and America is a prodigious consumer.

Suppose the cost that the market will pay for umbrellas is X. Presumably the Chinese manufacturers have found X and set their prices accordingly and have profit Y per umbrella. Now the price increases by tariff Z - either fewer umbrellas will be sold or Y will decrease to mitigate price increase, or some combination of both.

Tariffs are a tax on imports and in some sense have to be paid by the customer, but they are also a problem for the supplier.

This reasoning is similar to Donna Brazile ordering radio ads in New Orleans and Chicago for Hillary on the theory people there will call up their relatives in swing states and remind them to vote

Reply on news.ycombinator.com