Why do liberals dislike america so much?

Who pays it?
Importers of products from that country.
I know you do not know.
I do know. Importers of products from that country.
It is paid for in higher prices by the consumers of the country that receives those products,
Not necessarily. You can always import from somewhere else, simply absorb the extra cost, or just build the product domestically.
That means Americans pay higher prices.
America isn't a country. It is a region covering over two continents.
That is why cars are up a grand
No, that's the falling dollar.
and Chinese products are costlier.
Some are, some aren't.
If people still buy at the new prices, China is unaffected by it.
They can always from from somewhere else, and that's usually what happens.
However, in all cases, the consumer pays more for products.
Not necessarily.
 
Your word-salad didn't refute my post where I showed that the goods can still be freely traded, which is what you were trying to suggest.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

The entire concept of tariffs is to not trade freely. It puts an artificial price rise on specific imports. That inhibits its trade and if severe enough ends it.It is the antithesis of free rtade.
 
The entire concept of tariffs is to not trade freely. It puts an artificial price rise on specific imports. That inhibits its trade and if severe enough ends it.It is the antithesis of free rtade.

And yet, no matter how many times you falsely presented this; they are still FREE to engage in trade.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
Tariffs always wind up in price, one way or another.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

wrong. and you said that already. and even if it is in the price, it's still performing it's function as a market attenuator. some thing are more important than cheap goods, wouldn't you agree?
 
The entire concept of tariffs is to not trade freely. It puts an artificial price rise on specific imports. That inhibits its trade and if severe enough ends it.It is the antithesis of free rtade.

yes. this is to sculpt the society in specific ways, by prioritizing other national values above cheap goods, like people having jobs. no matter how cheap things get, it's no good for you if your income is zero because all your jobs went away.
 
wrong. and you said that already. and even if it is in the price, it's still performing it's function as a market attenuator. some thing are more important than cheap goods, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't higher prices on imported goods make American products more appealing? That would benefit American jobs and the economy.
 
I do think that there needs to be net zero tariffs on every item traded on the global market unless:

1) We agree with a country that they can charge an excess tariff on a staple export of its economy in exchange for an excess tariff on a comparable staple export of our own.

2) We need to sanction a country like China (theft) or Russia (invading its neighbours) for misbehaving.

It's pretty silly that we have all of these rate imbalances with EU and other WTO countries.
 
I do think that there needs to be net zero tariffs on every item traded on the global market unless:

1) We agree with a country that they can charge an excess tariff on a staple export of its economy in exchange for an excess tariff on a comparable staple export of our own.

2) We need to sanction a country like China (theft) or Russia (invading its neighbours) for misbehaving.

It's pretty silly that we have all of these rate imbalances with EU and other WTO countries.

yes. pretty sillly indeed.
 
Back
Top