Donald Trump recently announced a 10% tariff on all countries, set to take effect today, and much higher "reciprocal" tariffs on certain countries, set to take effect on April 9th.

The idea behind the tariffs is to incentivize companies to make their products within the United States, with American employees. The tariffs also aim to level the playing field in a way; Trump wants to get back at countries that impose tariffs against us.

Detractors claim that these tariffs will cause prices on goods to rise across the board for American citizens, since the cost of the tariffs will be passed down to the consumers.

What do you guys think?

I'm usually a pretty opinionated person, but I'm not really sure how I feel about these tariffs. Ultimately, tariffs are a type of tax, and I firmly believe that, in general, taxes are bad. So I'm inclined to oppose these tariffs. Why can't trade exist with the government taking its cut? I understand the desire to level the playing field with other countries, but I don't actually see any benefit for the American people. I don't even think it will bring back jobs, since so many American companies rely on imported goods to operate. And even if it does add jobs, does the American people as a whole even benefit from that if everything costs much more to buy?

I'm no expert, though. I'd love to hear more perspectives, because both Twitter and the mainstream media are useless if you're interested in nuance.

Foreigner perspective here


To me it just sounds like Trump learned a new word and is now continuously shouting it into the world pretending it will solve all of the issues facing the US.

I'm not going to claim to know much about all the intricacies of all these different tariffs or the effects they will have on the American economy & the American people. What I do find concerning is that Trump is weaponizing them and actively harming international relations with long standing allies. Countries who have fought and lost soldiers alongside the US in numerous conflicts.

In about about 2.5 months he has successfully sunk the reputation of the US. In a sense he's been able to truly unify the world... against America. The biggest foreign policy disaster since Bush and there's 4 more years of this.

Very curious how history will look back at these tariff wars

I see it as a shake up to the current system.

Most of the current wealth of the last 50 years has been built on an ever increasing system of debt that is now unsustainable. Trump is trying something different and I have no idea if it will work but doing nothing different is only going to kick the can down the road another 4+ years.

Too many countries have a debt to GDP ratio of 80% or higher and I'm pretty sure that has only gotten worse over the last few decades. When your debt servicing accounts for more than 20% of your annual budget you have a serious problem.

However, for too many years we've gone with the idea that we can grow our way out of our problems. I mean we as Western society. Spend now and hope the future revenue covers it.

Well, that has caught up to the US and many other countries. We need to stop relying on Chinese (or other Asian) slave wages to keep our countries going.

I'm not going to call myself an expert, but I do have an advanced degree in Economics. While I can be very opinionated about so-called "radical" policies, I understand the fundamentals pretty well I'd think.

Our economy in the US as a whole has been struggling, but not because of trade deficits with other countries. Tariffs are an important economic tool to protect domestic businesses, as has been the case with American Automakers for...forever. These tariffs help to close competitive advantage that foreign goods producers have due to lower costs, mainly in labor. The only reason American auto manufactures have any chance in the US is because of our high tariffing policy (as well as significant tax breaks, but that's another problem.)

Across the board tariffs are a TERRIBLE idea in the modern world. Does Trump expect the US to produce every good here? What about foods that can't grow in our climate? Or textiles that would cost significantly more to produce here than in Bangladesh? It is true that American manufacturing would come back if we tariffed high enough, but are jobs paying $7.25 an hour working in a sweat shop to make shirts the kinds of jobs we really want? I think everyone can agree we don't want that.

I won't even discuss how these made up percentages can to be, since it shows another degree of idiocy in the current administration. We tariffed an island with no population.

It is also worth mentioning that getting into trade wars is rarely beneficial. Just look at what China has already done in retaliation. A 34% tariff on American goods is disastrous for many industries, namely the beef industry. China is also limiting rare earth metals from being sent to the US, so what are we supposed to make all of our products with?

I understand we have some bad trade deals in place, but attacking every nation with made up tariffs is not the proper way to address it. This will only hurt the United States. China, Japan, and South Korea have already teamed up to retaliate against us. If you are bringing those three together, you may be doing the wrong thing.

I have a lot of strong opinions on the US economy I'm sure many people wouldn't agree with, but I hope that we can all agree that across the board tariffs for no reason is a horrible idea. Someone that knows what they are doing needs to step in before we go for a full scale recession.

Furret: Trump has been talking about tariffs for a while. I remember him mentioning them in 2015 / 2016, during his first presidential campaign, but I don't think anything ever came of it. It does seem like they've become his new obsession recently.

The US does gets the short end of the stick a lot of the time when it comes to our relationship with our allies, and I do agree with Trump's statements that that shouldn't be the case. We shouldn't be giving so much money to foreign countries when we get very little in return. I don't think it's the US's responsibility to fund the rest of the world. But I think trade is entirely different from that. I think both parties involved benefit from free trade (generally speaking). Cutting foreign aid is good, in my opinion, but using tariffs to attack other countries doesn't make much sense to me.

geeogree : I suppose any approach to cutting debt is going to upset people in some way. Cutting spending seems like the most obvious method, but look at the reaction to DOGE. If eliminating waste has people this up in arms, I can't even imagine what the reaction would be if Trump reduced spending on things that actually impact people's lives in some way.

I think the problem, though, is that we may already be too dependent on foreign goods to stop now. I think Bara made some good points in regards to this, with the rare earth metals from China and the foods that can't grow in our climate.

Barathemos : Very good points. Obviously we have a lot of disagreements politically, but I think I agree with you on this one. And I think I have a better understanding of the situation now after reading your post, so thank you for that.

tgags123: Oh for sure, I do agree that a lot of places have taken US aid for granted over the years. If anything I'm glad leaders here in Europe are finally waking up and advocating to become less dependent so we can become more of a global player.

However this all could have been handled a lot more diplomatically if someone more talented and dignified was in office handling these discussions. Not saying Harris was that person by the way, I think presidential candidates have sucked major behind for over a decade now.

It's embarrassing and downright scary to see an 80 year old man throw a temper tantrum on how he will 'Take Greenland by any means necessary'. Throw all these trade wars on top and by 4 years time America might become the new black sheep.

First and foremost the reason companies don't make amercian products here in amercia is because the potential for profit isn't worth the expenses of operating in Amercia

The United States will always be at a loss when it comes to manufacturing because of our labor laws and minimum wage....we can't compete with cheap labor from China,Taiwan, Vietnam etc because An Amercian worker expects $20+ an hour salary, health, dental and vision insurance and a 401k retirement plan and or pension

Where as China, Taiwan, Vietnam etc literally can pay there employees $1-7 a hour or in some places a day to work 14 hours with no benefits, no complaints and ultimately its cheaper and creates a larger profit margin while ultimately cutting operation expenses

Trumps Tariffs plan is very stupid and he clearly doesn't know much about economics but i also believe he's crashing the stock market and housing market on purpose so that those with money can buy up everything at a steal

these tariffs are pretty much bad news

I think it's a terrible idea because it's the companies and organizations that are paying the tax to have stuff imported and not the consumers. But then by extension, the companies will charge more in order to make the money back. The thing I hate the most though is the reasoning for why certain countries get one rate while other countries get a different rate. I read an article that says it's an arbitrary formula but then people were proving that the formula itself is dumb.

I say give it two or three months and the entire country from the consumer up to large companies will feel the effects, but I honestly think Trump and the others will be like "oh well, that's just a side effect" and not do anything about it.

However, the stock market crash might help out in the long run. Elon Musk already lost around $30 Billion from Tesla stock crashing. The further the stock drops, the more personal he's going to take things and try to get involved.

Truth to be told, the idea behind the tariffs is good. We've reached a point in which we neglected local products in order to consume foreign products because of pathetic reasons. Boosting the local industry is something politicians have strived for in the last years, and local businessess have also instigated them to take decisions to keep the industry alive and let the country have a spot in the market.

That being said: was this the way to go? Absolutely not, and even less in such a potent and big country like the US. They can perfectly produce everything, so there's no need to put weighs on the foreign competition but rather boost the existing local industry so they have a chance at competing against foreigners. But of course, that costs money to the government and can take years to eventually settle in the locals' favor if it does at all, so it's better to impose tariffs so the government gets money and makes it difficult for them to sell in the country compared to local industries.

And even if your country can produce everything, you still rely on outside resources. Climate, land, techniques... Everything changes between countries and that can affect the end quality of the product, so in a sense it's actually the importations which guarantee a good quality in what the consumers get. And like others have said, some imported goods are needed to operate and create all sorts of products, not having such goods means a lower quality or directly the unavailability of such product or service.

In my opinion, like we say here in Spain, Trump has shot himself on the foot. Like I said, his intentions are to boost America, but his methods and procedures are, at most, debatable. And his defence of his methods doesn't help his public image either, which is a shame because with the right advisors he could actually achieve big things. But in the end, he becomes the villain and threat of the world, sparking conflict both within his own country and in outside relations.

Not sure what will happen from here on now. 2025 is going to be another year of speculation, this time around tariffs imposed by countries and their effect on the economy both at national and international level. It can flop massively or it can be good, but in both cases at what expense? We'll see in due time.

Barathemos : I am genuinely surprised that you went to college for Economics. Not sure what I thought it would be, but I did not expect that. Then again, I'm sure most people did not expect me to major in History (Revolutionary and Civil War Eras America) and minor in Politcal Science (with a focus on foreign affair policy).

My opinion on the tarriffs, as a Moderate (Economically slightly left, socially slightly right) is that I get why he's doing the tarriffs, but I'm not necessarily going to like the immediately results. It's a "necessary evil," if you will. The problem is that America is viewed as the country with the money in Western Civilization. It was a huge shock to me how I was treated like a king just because I was white and clearly American when I went to India in 2020 (Just before Covid). (also see all the foreign aid through USAID)
I will say, through my educated, but by no means expert opinion, is that this is necessary for Trump to enact his campaign promises. I believe what his goal is with these reciprocal tarriffs is too hurt the countries that are tarriffing the USA with a high percentage on our goods, to bring them to the negotiating table to lower tarriffs for both sides, thus, in theory, lowering the cost of goods. It's a genius idea, at least in practice. The delimma at hand is how well will this work? I think for some of the countries we do a smaller ammount of buisness with, it will work out. But, for our major trade partners, such as Canada, Mexico, and yes, China, it will not go the way we want. I think NAFTA would have to be renogitated to have a set ammount of tarriffs or whatever it is that NAFTA covers (I admit I don't know NAFTA very well. My education was on foreign affair policy, not international trade relations). China, however, has the money to put their money where their mouth is; any kind of serious trade war with China will bite us in the ass. We'd have to do some serious stuff with regard to China, and I am afraid that could lead to an actual war. So, it's a very tough situation with China. Barathemos laid it out perfectly how messing with China is going to bite us in the ass. I think a much more diplomatic solution will be necessary.

In an ideal world, tariffs wouldn't be a thing, nor would they be a way to fund government. But, that is simply never going to be the case.

Personally, I am fine with the terriffs. But, as Bara said, we tarriffed an unpopulated island? Yeah, I voted for the man, but I can not agree with him on some things. The idea of the tarriffs I agree with, to try to get countries to the negotiating table, but not the way he has done. I don't normally buy into crazy conspriacy theories, but I'm buying into the one about using AI to dertermine these tarriff rates.



tgags123 : (in regard to your 2nd paragraph) That is pretty much how I feel about the matter: The idea of tarriffs is necessary, but how he implemented them was entirely wrong.



Furret : I don't think it's as bad as you think it is, but I can definitely understand where you are coming from. Trumps first term I think went amazingly well; the problem was he didn't know when to keep his damn mouth shut. This time, his ideas are good, but the way he's going about doing things I think is all wrong.
I'll admit, it's a bit more personal for me this time around though, since I'm a probationary employee in the federal government. I don't know if my job will be on the chopping block or not when DOGE hits my organization. I just got married. Thankfully, I should be able to get job fairly easily, but it won't pay as good as my government job, even if I take a supervisor position due to my experience, in my immeiately back up plan.
I don't think America will be the "black sheep" but we definitely won't be everybody's best friend anymore, especially those that depended on our aid, without giving the USA anything in return. And the Greenland thing is ridiculous. If Trump wanted Greenland's resources, he should have tried to negotiate some kind of deal, maybe something similiar to "we build the stuff, and in exchange, we get a much better rate than anybody else. "
And don't even get me started on Canada and 51st state. The only point of that was to rile up Candians to make the Conseratives (in the American way) get more momentum. I don't truly believe that Trump ever intends to make Canada a "51st state."



zanderlex : You understand the "how" as to how the tarriffs will affect individual Americans. The problem I have is that is has to get worse in order to get better, and Trump ran on making things better. He better hope for a MASSIVE turnaround, or this is going to blow up in his face.



EX Palen : You pretty much hit the nail on the head. How the next few months go will shape everything for the next 4 years. And I agree, he's going about it the wrong way. It's not the what, it's the how. And that was what most people who supported him the first time had to say about him then.

thing1: A few days ago I would've agreed with you that the end goal is to negotiate with other countries and eliminate or reduce tarrifs on both sides; based on some of what Trump was saying it seemed like that was the idea. However, I saw reports today that the EU apparently offered a zero-for-zero tariff policy (on "indsutrial goods," whatever that entails) and Trump turned it down. So now I'm not sure what the end goal is. Maybe he wants it to extend beyond "indsutrial goods."

Ultimately, I am in favor of taking aggressive measures to get a better deal in the long-run. I just hope the better deal comes sooner rather than later.

tgags123 : I thought that sounded a little strange, so I looked it up and found that that seems to be slightly misleading, or not the whole picture. It would appear that the "zero for zero" is still on the board, they just want to have some of their own retalitory tariffs for the time being? So, just not quite a blanket one? It would appear that this is what the EU Commission would like to do, but there are some detractors.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/eu-offers-zero-tariff-deal-to-us-but-prepares-for-trade-war/ar-AA1CsXUU?ocid=BingNewsSerp

There's a lot to this whole thing, and if I was still in college and needed a topic for a paper, I would love to do something on this for my Political Science Minor. It's really interesting. I just don't have the time to do a deep dive and really dig into it with a job and a wife now.

Update: Tariffs lowered to 10% on all countries, except for China. Tarriffs on China raised to 125%. To be completely honest I have absolutely no idea what to make of this. It's clearly retaliatory, and a show of dominance or something due to China's unwillingness to negotiate, but why the decrease everywhere else? Only a few days after raising them?

tgags123 : Trump got exactly what he wanted. The tariffs were a show of force. Add that to the fact that America stopped given so much free aid, and we basically crippled a lot of these smaller countries. The "bigger" ones could take it, but it would cripple their economy. Like it or not, what the US does in the economic sector dictates a lot of the rest of the world's economy.
I don't think Trump ever intended for the the tariffs to be a way to eliminate the deficit. I think he was using retalitory tariffs as a way to get tariffs on American goods lowered, thus, in theory, helping the economy by making things cheaper. But China, being the (arguably) bigger economy than the USA, due to their cheap labor, sweat shops, and ability to pump out products of various quality, China wanted to see where this go. Raising the tariffs on China will definitely continue to hurt the USA and raise prices here, but I don't think it's the end of the world, nor is it a permanent solution. It's a negotiating tool. If there's one thing Trump is good at, it's business.