Many think that tariffs are a big external stick, that they are imposed and that they are paid by foreign firms。
But real-estate economics has come to a very strong conclusion: customs duties, the weapons, are thrown out, and the darts tend to hit themselves。
Trump's tariff policy is very clear。
Lifting the threshold for foreign goods to enter the united states, protecting indigenous factories and attracting overseas production lines back to the united states, while the treasury collects more customs duties, also wants to reduce the widening trade deficit。
The ideal is full of reality and there is a clear division: a small number of industries are receiving dividends, and the whole community bears the costs。
First of all, it does bring limited benefits。
For indigenous industries such as steel and aluminium, which are directly protected by customs duties, import prices are raised, competitive pressures on local products are reduced, business earnings and profits are improved, and some factories are maintained or small numbers of jobs are added。
The government's treasury is also actually receiving a tariff revenue, and the fiscal books are in short supply。
Some enterprises have opted to land on the mainland of the united states, given their tariff evasion considerations。
However, these partial gains do not mask multiple pressures at the social level。
First, the majority of customs bills are paid by the americans themselves。
Many agencies measure that more than 90 per cent of the costs of tariff escalation are borne by united states importers, retailers and ultimately ordinary consumers, rather than exporting enterprises。
The same electricity, clothing, building materials, car parts and spare parts increase the cost of receiving goods, and shops can only be sold to ordinary people。
The study estimates that many ordinary households spend thousands of dollars more each year on living expenses due to customs duties, crushing directly the purchasing power of the population and exacerbating inflationary pressures。
Many wonder why foreign producers do not reduce their tariffs
Many globalized commodities, the united states of america, were just one of many markets, and producers would not significantly reduce prices for a single market and costs would naturally shift downstream。
Secondly, it harms large parts of the united states indigenous manufacturing industry。
There is a critical area of error: customs protection of finished products can cause injury to indigenous factories dependent on imported parts。
The united states has a large number of automobiles, machinery and electronics enterprises, and production requires large quantities of raw materials and spare parts from abroad。
Aluminium steel tariffs raise the price of basic materials and the cost of downstream vehicles and equipment manufacturing enterprises rises. One side of the product is protected, while the raw materials are expensive, the profits are under pressure, and even reduced capacity and staff。
Protecting a small number of upstream industries has strained a large portion of downstream manufacturing, the most contradictory of tariff policies。
Thirdly, the united states agricultural exports bear the brunt of a reciprocal backlash。
You impose tariffs on other people's goods, and trading partners will naturally take counter-measures to target american exports。
Agricultural products such as soybeans, pork, cereals, etc. Have repeatedly been the focus of countervailing efforts. The policy effects of shrinking overseas orders, the inability to sell agricultural products, and the huge losses suffered by farmers, as the government had to pay subsidies to cover farmers ' losses, which were equivalent to customs revenues, and to subsidize the damaged groups。
Fourthly, the core objective of reducing the trade deficit has not been achieved。
The united states trade deficit is rooted in a low-saving, high-consumption internal economic structure。
High import tariffs alone make it difficult to change the bottom logic. The data show that the us merchandise trade deficit did not narrow significantly as expected after tariff implementation and continued to rise for some time。
In order to circumvent tariffs, enterprises also resort to trade transfers and the re-export of goods from country a to third countries, without reducing the total size of imports。
Fifth, policy uncertainty and the willingness of enterprises to invest in the long term。
Tariffs have changed, rates have fluctuated and negotiations have fluctuated。
The failure of entrepreneurs to see future trade rules will delay plans for plant expansion and expansion. No one is willing to throw money at us, and then the policy changes, all of them passive。
The decline in investment confidence, in turn, slows down the potential for economic growth。
Of course, we cannot simply deny the role of tariffs altogether。
In a given scenario, tariffs can be used as bargaining chips or as a break for key indigenous industries。
However, it is not a panacea and cannot be expected to complete a large-scale return of manufacturing and address trade imbalances by relying solely on tariffs。
The reality is:
A few protected industries benefit
Consumers bear the price increases
Lower manufacturing costs
Retaliation of agricultural exports
Society as a whole suffers from uncertainty。
Trade games are never a zero-cost drama。
Tariffs are weapons and, equally, double-edged swords, with each swing and external pressure being exerted at a corresponding cost within the national economy。
End of the interaction: do you think that through tariff barriers, we can really save our manufacturing industry? The comment section is welcome to share your views。
Note: this paper is interpreted only as an objective economic event and does not constitute an investment proposal。
