Instead of just going “Damn! I learned something today.” he is insisting on trying to weasel his way out of his ignorance.
2
34
You have shown nothing.
Econman ran away after claiming the importer of record pays the tariff.
"TECHNICALLY" LOL.
1
23
Let’s try this again!👇😂
His grasp of tariff incidence is weak and inconsistent. He conflates legal payment (importer of record) with economic burden, overstates foreign manufacturers absorbing costs via profits, and downplays consumer pass-through. Elasticities determine sharing; empirics on recent US tariffs show 86-96% falls on US importers and buyers, with foreign exporters absorbing little. He shifts claims under pushback rather than updating. Basic incidence theory eludes him.
1
27
Grok is confused by my response to your "importer of record" bullshit, which is why you introduced that smokescreen.
You have avoided my key points. You have avoided grok telling you much of it is absorbed by the manufacturers and the importers, and that consumers only eat...
3
33
Why is it so difficult for you to simply admit that you were mistaken about how tariffs work? If you actually cared about the economy and U.S. businesses, you would reconsider your position now that you’ve learned that your understanding of how they worked was exactly backwards.
1
1
27
So now you ignore the 96% and focus on the 4%??????
REALLY? Seriously dude, time to just admit you were clueless and move on. This is humiliating for you!
2
26
All that matters is you are finally admitting the 4% is a tax on foreign companies.
We can haggle over the %, but at a minimum 4% of the tariffs are a tax on foreign companies.
4
34
I just can’t with this idiot.
He claimed foreigners pay all the tariffs, now he claims victory for his concession that 4% of the burden falls on foreigners.
I don’t think I’ve ever debated a bigger moron in my life.😂
1
24
I understand you need to misrepresent my position after admitting at least 4% of the tariff is a tax borne by the manufacturer.
What would be fun would be to look at actual real life cases like Ford!
2
42
Fox, show me where I ever claimed that there wasn’t a deadweight loss borne by foreign companies. Take your time and copy and paste a link to my post. I’ll wait as long as you need.
1
28
What you claimed was that I was wrong to state that manufacturers pay tariffs.
But now we are on the same page ever since you admitted they do in fact pay some of the tariff.
It took a long time to get here.
1
28
Nope, manufacturers pay ZERO tariffs.
I’ve explained this about a dozen times and so has Grok. Foreign manufacturers pay NOTHING in tariffs. ZERO. ZIP. NADA!
1
31
Hilarious that you still don’t understand that if an exporter drops its price from $100 to $95, that $5 doesn’t end up at the treasury.
It’s a deadweight loss, which I’ve explained a dozen times. The ONLY tariff money that ends up at the treasury is paid for by the U.S. firm.
2
1
33
Suppose China was selling at $100 with a tariff of 0%. American pays $100, the treasury gets zero dollars.
New 25% tariff. China holds firm at $100. American pays $125 for a $100 product and Treasury gets $25.
Alternately, China drops to $95. American pays $118.75. ...
2
37
Treasury gets $23.75.
To claim that isnt split at $5 paid by China and 18.75 by the American relies on pretending the drop from $100 to $95 in response to the tariff was completely independent of the tariff.
1
38
You getting confused on such a simple example does not surprise me.
Where did the math confuse you?
A 25% tariff on $100 is $25.
A 25% tariff on $95 is $23.75.
2
47
Hahahahaha, you are not only an idiot, but a compulsive liar. You claimed that China pays a portion of the tariff and that money ends up in the treasury. You said it multiple times, now you are pretending like you didn’t. You are a truly pathetic man.😂
1
26
In your example, China dropped the price from $100 to $95 in direct response to a tariff.
The American pays in total $118.75 after the tariff while before he paid $100.
Treasury makes $23.75. That $23.75 comes, ultimately, from an $18.75 increase to the American and a $5...
1
31
decrease in what China makes.
China takes no consolation from the fact that someone else wrote the $23.75 check to the Treasury. They know that $5 of it effectively came from them.
1
37
China lost $5. There is no $5 of free money coming from China to the treasury. That was your claim based on your obvious fundamental misunderstanding of tariffs. Now you are pretending like you never said it because you feel stupid.😂
1
31
China lost $5.
Where did it go?
The American lost $18.75 compared to the "no tariff" price of $100.
And Treasury made $23.75.
Where did the lost $5 go?
3
48
Eric, you are here.
The same effect happens on other products, even chinese steel.
Care to address the point I am making here? The math seems very clear. When CBO says the split is 70/30, they are looking at the math I'm showing in this example.
($5 vs $18.75 = 21/79 split)
1
31
You literally didn’t understand that the U.S. company pays the tariffs. You believed that the foreign company paid them, as made clear by the screenshot I posted.
Now you have spent a silly amount of time trying to simply not be wrong via every method imaginable. Stop.
2
31
Eric, in my example, China is EFECTIVELY paying $5 of the $23.75 tariff.
Any NORMAL person would say China is paying $5 of the tariff. This is like "I dont pay property taxes, the bank does" because they cut the check.
Do you dispute that China is paying $5 in my example?
1
28
Dude, do you need me to run the numbers for you on Chinese steel?
Why would they bother going through Canada and paying a middleman if they could simply pass all the tariff costs on?
Like my $100 example, they will pay some of the tariffs.
Hi econman you coward!!!!
3
28
We aren’t talking about running numbers, as much as you would love to gaslight and move the goal posts. The fact is that you did not believe that the U.S. importers even paid the tariffs. Until you acknowledge that, you are entirely unserious.
2
40
