[tivert]

> Those quotes say nothing and are pure conjecture.

Apparently not: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/world/us-tariffs-canada-c...:

> When Mr. Trump imposed tariffs on China during his first term in the White House, some studies found that part of the cost was passed on to American consumers. Suppliers in China also cut their prices in many cases to offset part of the cost of the tariffs. [emphasis mine]

> I will tell you exactly who will pay the increase (and then some, because there's always juice on top of juice): we will; you and I, and every person and family we know. That's who.

It's worth noting that you're basically quoting a line of political attack. From the same article I linked above:

> Democrats spent the weekend hammering the message that Mr. Trump was responsible for making life in America more expensive.

> “In one reckless move,” said Representative Gabe Vasquez, Democrat of New Mexico, “the president just raised the price you pay for gas, the truck you drive to work, a computer for your small business and everything at the grocery store, from avocados to tequila.”

Underneath all that noise, I'm sure things are far less simple than any side's attacks claim. Unfortunately, all almost anyone hears on any issue are political attacks, which are blasted from the rooftops.

[caspper69]

My experience was markedly different.

With computing equipment from China, there wasn't enough margin for them to lower prices (or they just refused).

So we paid for all of it.

Read their wording carefully: some studies found...many cases to offset part of the cost...

This is weasel language that purports to convey a lot of meaning, but is (I feel intentionally) light on actual facts.

You can't just strong arm people into giving you a better deal. Logic would dictate that any company who is competetive in the market is already giving you their best price.

These tariffs are punitive and not even protectionist (which I could at least respect), because we don't, can't and/or won't manufacture the vast majority of the items we import from these countries.

P.S. citing easily observable facts are not a political attack. You have no idea what my political persuasion is, and frankly, just because I have a strong distaste for DJT doesn't mean I'm a Democrat. Some people know what a spade looks like, no matter who they pretend to be.

P.P.S. additionally, had this administration annonuced a comprehensive plan to make capital available to American industry to step up and onshore the manufacture of these goods, I would be singing a very different tone.

[tivert]

> My experience was markedly different.

But your experience with IT equipment does not generalize to all trade between the US and China, which includes more than just IT equipment.

> This is weasel language that purports to convey a lot of meaning, but is (I feel intentionally) light on actual facts.

I don't think it's weaselly, rather it's one of those areas that's not black and white and there is a lot of variation, which does not lend itself to a crisp, succinct summary. One of the cases in the original article I linked was the supplier gives a little on margin, and the importer overall pays more due to the tariff, but not the full amount, and that's what the second article seemed to be describing.

> P.S. citing easily observable facts are not a political attack.

That kind of thing can totally can be part of an attack: the most effective attacks usually start with easily observable facts (and then omit others to fit the desired narrative), because that gives them more credibility. And I didn't mean to imply that you were making an attack, I was just noting that rhetoric is in the air due to the frequent political attacks, which often leads to it getting repeated.

> P.P.S. additionally, had this administration annonuced a comprehensive plan to make capital available to American industry to step up and onshore the manufacture of these goods, I would be singing a very different tone.

And we can agree that would be a good thing.