Tariffs Catch-All

[UNCatTech]

“… Since the start of the fiscal year in October, the U.S. has collected $63.3 billion in customs duties, a $15.4 billion increase from the same period a year earlier.

Although positive for the government’s balance sheet, the deficit for the current fiscal year through April is still about $1.05 trillion—about 23% wider than the prior year.

New tariffs generally take about a month to show up as receipts in the government’s accounting. The April increase likely reflects a host of tariff increases levied by the Trump administration earlier this year, including tariffs on steel and aluminum, products from Mexico and Canada, and the rollout of the reciprocal tariffs during the month. …”

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-tariffs-trade-war-05-12-2025/card/u-s-collected-a-record-16-3-billion-in-customs-duties-in-april-xgzJO1QrMJMzGev81FAH?mod=mhp

I've read this is primarily increased orders to beat the tariffs. If the tariffs go away there will be a down period to rebalance inventories.

 

[ZenMode]

This you?

"Ok, but that's still what he's presumably looking to fix, right?"

"That" being the balance of trade.

"That" being the discrepancy between tariffs we're charged and tariffs we charge.

We have 300 million people and we have lots of money. We will have a trade deficit with certain countries indefinitely.

 

[ZenMode]

We did that. Eight times actually, plus an attempt at a ninth.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US is not subject to high tariffs abroad. That is just a mistake of fact. There are countries that have high tariffs on goods we don't make. In theory, Bangladesh has high tariffs relative to ours in textiles. But we don't sell textiles to Bangladesh and we don't want to. Those tariffs are insulating the Bangladeshi domestic market from, say, India or Burma. It doesn't affect the U.S.

Understand that, in all of those rounds of negotiating, the overriding US goal was a reduction in trade barriers around the world. For decades we worked with other countries to lower tariffs, and it worked very well as evidenced by the achievements of the negotiation rounds. It is not the case that those tens of thousands or people (or more) involved in those discussions were idiots. Trump is an idiot, and he's lying to you about the world economy. Or someone is lying to you.

Wikipedia as a source: DENIED

 

[ChileG]

"That" being the discrepancy between tariffs we're charged and tariffs we charge.

We have 300 million people and we have lots of money. We will have a trade deficit with certain countries indefinitely.

Which tariffs? Nobody here seems to know, but maybe you do.
And you’ll need to talk about tariffs that existed before Trump started his 2nd term.

 

[superrific]

Wikipedia as a source: DENIED

You are contesting that there have been eight rounds of successful multilateral negotiations per the GATT? Which one of the eight listed on the Wikpedia page doesn't count?

 

[ZenMode]

You are contesting that there have been eight rounds of successful multilateral negotiations per the GATT? Which one of the eight listed on the Wikpedia page doesn't count?

No, I'm contesting that there isn't still a gap between what we charge and are charged.

I don't trust the go-along-to-get-along beurocrats to do what's best for the country, even after 8 tries.

 

[superrific]

"That" being the discrepancy between tariffs we're charged and tariffs we charge.

We have 300 million people and we have lots of money. We will have a trade deficit with certain countries indefinitely.

This was what you were replying to:

"The balance of trade looks very different when you include everything."

Now, it's likely that you don't understand what the balance of trade means. It's not the same as tariffs. It's the trade deficit. Sorry. This isn't another case of arguing over words. You are literally wrong. Now, if you want to say that you misunderstood, fine.

I promise you that the tariffs we charge and are charged are in balance. That's what 9 rounds of multilateral trade negotiations achieved (the 9th being unfinished as of yet and will probably never finish). During those rounds, I'm quite certain that the US didn't spend much time fretting over Bolivia's tariffs on alpaca wool, because they are economically insignificant. Literally nobody cares. So you will undoubtedly be able to pull some dumbass tariff rate that some country somewhere charges on something, which has no relation to the real world at all.

You might even be able to find a high tariff rate on some product in the deal between industrial countries. As I've explained to you, trade barriers are mostly about politics, and in some countries, some industries have enormous clout. The sugar industry in the US, for instance, has long been able to convince Department of Agriculture to maintain low quotas on imported sugar, which is why most of our sugar comes from beets (inefficiently) and we pay higher sugar prices than many other places. Or it did come from beets. Maybe there are other sugar sources now but we aren't importing much sugar, because trade barriers.

Or the deal between the US and other economies on cars: passenger cars are tariffed by Europe; trucks are tariffed by the U.S. The truck tariff is considerably higher, because there is considerably more volume in cars. When the deal was made, the two concessions were likely of similar value, because that's how negotiations work.

 

[finesse]

No wonder I'm confused. I always thought that go along and get along thing was kinda useful in making deals.

Curious minds wonder if there isn't a clear distinction between eight rounds and eight tries.

 

[superrific]

I don't trust the go-along-to-get-along beurocrats to do what's best for the country, even after 8 tries.

I don't trust you to have any fucking clue what is best for the country. You are saying that you know better than thousands of smart, highly educated people -- people way smarter and more educated than you -- who have infinitely more experience given that you have none.

Nobody does extreme arrogance better than you. In fact, you're the most arrogant person on this board hands down.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't trust you to have any fucking clue what is best for the country.

Duh ... clearly it's only YOU that has a clue on EVERYTHING!

You are saying that you know better than thousands of smart, highly educated people -- people way smarter and more educated than you -- who have infinitely more experience given that you have none.

Nobody does extreme arrogance better than you. In fact, you're the most arrogant person on this board hands down.

 

[superrific]

Duh ... clearly it's only YOU that has a clue on EVERYTHING!

Not only me, duh. But at least I know things. You don't. The gap between your knowledge of what we talk about here, and my knowledge, is approximately the same as the girls' basketball team at Chapel Hill High and the UNC men's varsity. But everyone already knows that, which is why my opinion is valued and yours scorned.

And I keep telling you: your opinion wouldn't be scorned if you tried to learn. If you learned things, you'd be surprised how much more respect you would have. You can close the gap between us. I can't, but you can.

 

[Calheel]

The strategy, in general, should be to come to agreements with each country so we aren't getting hit with large tariffs while charging low tariffs.

China is a separate issue...

That is not the problem. The real problem is government subsidized industries, like Chinese steel, which can then be sold at a lower cost in the US due to that subsidization.

The second issue is non-tariff barriers, like requiring US companies to partner with local companies if they wish to sell into a market or requiring IP transfers.

Us getting charged higher tariffs is not a thing.

 

[superrific]

That is not the problem. The real problem is government subsidized industries, like Chinese steel, which can then be sold at a lower cost in the US due to that subsidization.

Also known as a subsidy. LOL. I always find it funny when people take a noun that came from a verb, and then "verbify" it by adding a suffix and that's how we get utilization instead of use. We all do it.

Anyway, one problem here is that it's quite difficult to measure the subsidy. We assume it should be there because we assume that the Chinese companies' price structure is the same as ours. I don't know if that's a good assumption to make.

The non-tariff barrier business is likely going away on its own, as I mentioned above. China isn't afraid of US tech any more.

 

[Calheel]

Anyway, one problem here is that it's quite difficult to measure the subsidy.

No, it is easy. Per Trump, you just look at the trade deficit. If it favors the other country, then that country is ripping us off. Easy.

 

[Zoo_View]

So we have taken the gun away from our head and pointed it at our crotch instead, China has given us nothing, and we're declaring victory?

First Rule of Trumpism - Never accept blame or responsibility

Second Rule of Trumpism - Always claim being a victim

Third Rule of Trumpism - always declare victory

 

[StrangePackage]

Wikipedia as a source: DENIED

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with Wikipedia?

 

[McAdooSmackinYou]

Don't you mean WOKEipedia?

 

[Zoo_View]

The idea that Wikipedia is a bad source for basic info about GATT is laughable.

 

[Ramrouser]

Treasury Department reports that customs duties revenue for April totaled 16.3 B as compared to 7.1 B last April.

It won’t solve the debt problem alone but it’s a start.

 

[EyeballKid]

Treasury Department reports that customs duties revenue for April totaled 16.3 B as compared to 7.1 B last April.

It won’t solve the debt problem alone but it’s a start.

Right. Boosted by businesses importing more than normal in effort to get ahead of the tariffs.

It won’t solve anything, but you’ll lap up and parrot the propaganda pumped out by right wing media.