저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 관세가 하위 80% 미국인에게 가장 큰 부담이며 계산 공식은 근거가 약하다는 주장. 관세 협상 여지는 열려 있으나 반도체·제약 관세 추가 예고. 연간 세수 약 2,900억 달러 추정(트럼프 주장 6,000억 달러 대비 낮음), 가구당 소득 2%대 감소. 평균 관세율은 과거 약 2.5%에서 최소 10%로 상승. 시장은 하락 마감, 나스닥 450선 방어 여부가 관건이며 사태 최악은 반영됐다는 기대는 협상 전제에 의존.
다듬은 글
Economic research is now suggesting that Donald Trump's tariffs are going to hurt the bottom 80% of Americans the most. Once again, they're going to help the wealthy Americans, but not actually American trade, American manufacturing, American industrialization. And it's possible, at least according to CNBC, that the numbers are totally made up.
Let's talk. Well, in contradiction with Carolyn Levitt, Peter Navarro, and Mr. Ludnick, Donald Trump is now suggesting he's open to negotiate negotiation on these tariffs if countries offer him something phenomenal. Countries offer something phenomenal. He also said, quote, "Every country is calling us.
We put ourselves in the driver's seat. Now other countries will do anything for us." An analyst of the president saying they weren't looking to make deals. They were not looking to make negotiations. Now the president kind of changing that and saying as long as there's something good on the table, he's not specifying what that is, that he would be open to potentially lowering these tariffs at some point in the future.
He also said that further tariffs will be coming. They hinted at this yesterday, but he says that tariffs on semiconductors will be starting very soon, and that they're also looking at pharmaceuticals. He also said the market reaction today is what is expected. He said it is going to be a booming economy, but he called this a transition period.
The problem with this is you've got folks on CNBC suggesting Donald Trump made up the numbers in terms of the other tariffs that are being supposedly levied upon us. Now we have questioned this in the data as well, and we're not going to rehash everything that I've already said because I don't want to sound redundant to you.
We've got the other videos you're welcome to watch on those. Instead, I want you to listen to this clip from CNBC, and we'll add commentary to it. Let's go. Are there sparking some fears and questions about a global recession also. The White House said the new tariffs are pegged to amounts that other countries impose on the US.
According to their formula, it's the size of a country's goods trade imbalance with the US divided by how much we import from that nation. Are there some some of the the math the calculus that calculus? No. CNBC's Steve Liesman is here with us to break it all down. Also with us Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation.
It's great to have you both here. So, let's just back up, Steve, for a second. The formula as mentioned, this is laser focused on goods. It doesn't matter if we want if they want to serve if we want a service in surplus with the other country, this is about the trade deficit in goods, and whatever happened earlier this week is not a barometer it seems for this announcement.
Yeah, I don't want to start off in a caustic way, but but you asked is that calculus? To a lot of trade experts, Kelly, it's gibberish. That's really the problem. When when this thing came out, my initial reaction was to, you know, be a reporter, and I called up these trade experts, including one we're going to talk to in a second, and I said, "Have you ever heard of this?" And they said, "No.
Do you know anybody who's ever used this formula to determine the trade burden or onus or whatever of Everybody said, "No." What's interesting is here's the White House comment. I don't know if you guys have it. No, not the formula. Here's the comment where if you look at what they say, I don't know if I have it in front of me, but it says that we used something that's been used in a lot of other times and places.
But they just made it up, Kelly. Nobody's ever heard of it. There it is. "I want to emphasize," said a White House official, "that these tariffs are customized to each country, and the numbers have been calculated by the Council of Economic Advisers using very very well-established methodologies from the national economic literature, but nobody's ever heard of it, Kelly.
So, I think they made up that statement, and they made up that formula. This is problematic for Trump's ability to negotiate because if other countries look at what Donald Trump is doing as basically saying BS, and then trying to negotiate on top of a pile of BS, countries might call his bluff. Now one-on-one, Donald Trump and the United States have a lot of power, but if we overplay our hand against everyone, we could end up in a situation where other countries will say, "You know what?
Why don't we just let your stocks continue to tank? After all, that's what Putin's pulling off, and it's probably what China's pulling off. This idea that China is going to get strong-armed into giving up TikTok for cheap price to try to get out of this tariff negotiation, I don't know if it's going to happen.
I'm hopeful. You and I and the entire all of Wall Street and the country, we're braced for something that might resemble and might be defensible, if arguable, as reciprocal tariffs. These are not reciprocal. These are essentially non-reciprocal punitive tariffs, including, it looks like, according to this Newsweek article, on a chunk of Britain British ocean territory, Diego Garcia, where there's a military US military base, they're also been tariffed.
But listen to this next clip here, where CNBC questions, wait a second, wait a second. Are we actually going to make the $600 that could help us prevent needing to pay taxes on anyone making an income of under $150,000? Is it Is that potentially possible here? Well, let's listen in directly to CNBC's analyst at consulting firm that comes in and gives us very answer.
So So, the tariffs will create a tax burden on the US economy, and it will be shared by workers and by business owners. You know, some companies may be able to pass their tariff costs on to retail prices, others won't. They'll have to eat that cost. It reduces their revenues, their profits, which means they might have to cut hiring.
They might have to cut returns to to shareholders. Um so, in either way, whether the cost is passed forward or passed backward, it's American workers and American business owners who who bear that burden. Um we've estimated that the revenue raised by these tariffs in 2025, if they're all left in place, will be about $290 billion.
That's a lot lower than what you might hear elsewhere. That's because when we put a tax on imports, imports fall. Um if you think imports are going to stay the same, you're out of step with the economic literature. We also know that when tariff payments rise, other tax revenues fall. Tariffs, like I mentioned, pull income out of the economy before it's actually sent to workers or to shareholders, so it shrinks the basis of the income tax and the payroll tax, cutting off some of the direct tariff revenue.
That's what gets us down to to that $290 billion. Um and on average, that amounts to a tax increase of more than $2,100 per US household, or a reduction in after-tax income of more than 2%. Uh it hits lower-income households and middle-income households, so so working-class people harder than it does wealthier people because lower-income households consume more of their income than the wealthy do.
Um so, this is a regressive tax increase, even if it's used to partially offset something like, let's say, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extension. About the bottom 80% of taxpayers are worse off under that trade because the tariffs are a larger tax hike on them than the tax cuts will provide a benefit.
Now so far, this lady is pretty intelligent, at least in my opinion. They're estimating that tariffs will actually generate less than half of what Trump is aiming at, that $600 billion, although he mentions trillions now, mostly because as tariffs and taxes go up, not only are you going to see trade go down, but you're going to see the money that's available in the economy from wages or business profits also go down.
So, that multiplier effect is just going to compress trade pretty dang heavily. So, this is obviously really problematic because it means Donald Trump's goals might not be achieved, and the credibility Donald Trump has from a position of negotiation may not actually be as strong. Now hopefully other countries fold, and we can go to a freer version of free trade that we had before because obviously we had free trade asterisks before with everybody tariffing each other somewhere around 1.5% to 2.5% on a trade-weighted basis.
Some countries a little more, some countries a little less. And then obviously on individual goods and services, some tariffs were a little higher, some were a little lower. But the weighted average tariffs were very low. They were on average generally around 2.5% plus or minus. Now all of a sudden, we're putting a minimum tariff of 10% on everybody else, five times what we've ever done before, and substantially more on countries like China or other areas within Asia, where tariffs are now anywhere between 30% to 54%, which is obviously extremely devastating for trade in those regions.
So, all of that put together, we hope that other countries will fold. That actually might be a sign of strength. The problem is the stock market I don't know if it really believes it. In fact, if you look at the end of the day here, first of all, you can see we fell at the open, rejected at the 457 line on the Qs.
We're sitting at 450 right now, but we fell in that last hour of trade in the day, which is a critical indication that institutions might actually be getting a lot of sell order flow from their clients, a little bit of a red flag. Now Bitcoin's been pretty dang stable, and Tesla's been relatively stable all day, so there is some hope that maybe we're bottoming, and if it is bottoming around 102, and maybe the worst is priced in.
The problem with the idea that the worst is priced in is that it's probably assuming that the worst of the tariff policy announcements are over, and that we're going to resolve tariff tariff policy with negotiations from here. Hopefully, we just need to get it done before we hit a recessio.
Comments 0