欢迎来到538的政治聊天。下面的文字经过了轻微的编辑。
nrakich(纳撒尼尔·拉基奇资深编辑兼选举分析师):让我们狂欢吧好像现在是1890年，因为现在是关税时间，宝贝!周四，唐纳德·特朗普总统宣布互惠关税对几乎每个国家来说，这意味着美国现在将对来自特定国家的进口商品征收与该国对来自美国的商品征收相同的关税。这当然是白宫最近关税狂潮的高潮:本周早些时候，他征收了一项关税对所有钢铁和铝进口征收25%的关税通常被认为是针对中国的，尽管它也影响到加拿大等美国的盟友对…征收10%的关税全部中国的商品。(就目前而言，他已经放弃了对加拿大和墨西哥同时征收更严厉关税的计划。)
在特朗普上任以来采取的许多行政措施中，这些关税有可能成为对最多美国人最重要的措施之一。那么美国人对他们是什么感觉呢?
tia .杨(蒂亚·杨(资深编辑):总体而言，美国人在关税问题上意见相当分歧。宽广地说吧，民意调查这年有显示增加或新的关税在公众中不受欢迎。至少三分之二的共和党人倾向于支持他们，而更大比例的民主党人一贯反对他们。
但随着美国人更多地了解关税及其实际影响，这些数字仍然很容易发生变化。就在选举之后，有一种趋势，人们突然在谷歌上搜索关税是如何工作的，因为这是一种不可靠的外交/经济政策领域，大多数选民可能没有考虑太多。我认为这仍然是事实，因为围绕特朗普关税政策的这场斗争仍在升温。
nrakich:是的，谷歌搜索“关税”选举后立即增加，尽管真正的大幅飙升发生在2月初，当时特朗普正在与加拿大和墨西哥进行对峙。
莫妮卡·波茨(莫妮卡·波茨(资深政治记者):除了Tia所说的，在查看关于美国人对这些关税的感受的调查数据时，我印象最深的一件事是，它们周围有多少不确定性。在今年的民意调查中，当被问及是否支持或反对关税时，选择“既不”或“不确定”的受访者比例高达百分之二十五。这并不奇怪:尽管选民明白关税是对进口商品征收的税，但这也是一个相当复杂的政策问题。因此，关税调查的结果因问题的提问方式、我们谈论的关税种类等而异是有道理的。
盖略特莫里斯(G.埃利奥特·莫里斯《数据分析》编辑部主任):莫妮卡，你提醒了我这一点大多数美国人不关注政治几乎没有，当民意测验专家要求他们发表意见时，许多人给出的第一印象是基于他们可能对该问题所知甚少，而不一定是知情的态度。这并不是说我们应该忽略这些民意调查——只是说我们必须小心解读它们。
莫妮卡·波茨:是的，我想许多美国人仍然在根据他们听到的最新消息形成他们的观点。
杨:几个……的最近的关于这个话题的民意调查有问美国人对关税的感受以及他们对这些关税的影响的看法-发现对关税的支持不一，尽管大多数人(60%至70%之间)一直认为这些关税将增加美国的商品成本。然而，他们是否认为关税将推高成本的问题往往会在他们是否支持关税的问题之后提出。支撑可能会更低当直接提到成本时在关于支持关税的问题上。
例如，在YouGov调查从1月份开始，刚刚超过一半的最初表示支持提高进口商品关税的人表示，他们仍然会这样做，“即使这会导致美国消费者的价格上涨”，而20%的人表示，他们将不再支持关税。其余的人不确定。
在一个领航员调查，37%的注册选民支持特朗普的关税计划，41%的人反对，而至少有60%的人表示关税将提高价格，与其他民调类似。但真正引起我注意的是另一个问题，即这些更高的成本是否值得“如果它有助于保持美国制造业的强大并保护美国的就业机会。”微弱多数的人认为这是值得的。这主要是由共和党人推动的，其中69%的人表示这种交换是值得的。相比之下，只有21%的民主党人和29%的无党派人士这么认为。
因此，美国人对特朗普关税政策的支持可能不仅取决于价格是否上涨，还取决于他们是否看到对就业等其他经济指标的积极影响。
莫妮卡·波茨:然而，许多经济学家并不认为这有什么价值关税将是最好的工具美国人确实想要的东西，比如增加就业机会。关税将为政府增加一些收入，但很难使它们覆盖特朗普提议的减税。在合理的情况下，它们确实会保护一些国内行业，但广泛的关税可能弊大于利。
因此，当美国人真正关心的目标通过其他政策更容易实现时，关税是特朗普使用的一种生硬的工具和谈判策略。
nrakich:我们开始讨论关税的经济影响，这将是我的下一个问题。它们真的会像特朗普的批评者警告的那样严重损害经济吗?
莫妮卡·波茨:我想大多数经济学家都同意，关税会立即提高消费者价格，增幅约为有人估计每月100美元。不管怎样，许多经济学家不喜欢关税。不要太不靠谱，但他们只是把钱从消费者那里转移到政府和生产商那里——但甚至没有那么多钱。我们从贸易中获得的一些价值和效率完全丧失了。
还有另一个潜在的政治成本。看着特朗普的高关税威胁，后退，再次威胁等。，可能只是让我们的警惕我们的贸易伙伴。特朗普暂停了对加拿大和墨西哥商品征收关税的计划，但这些国家的领导人和公司知道美国仍然是一个可靠的贸易伙伴吗?如果特朗普想要别的呢?他是不是每次想要什么都要威胁关税?这可能会迫使我们的盟友投入中国等其他大型贸易伙伴的怀抱。公司只是想卖他们的商品;他们不想成为谈判的筹码。
此外，特朗普的既定目标是增加美国制造业如果没有其他国内政策的改变来增加这种可能性，就不会发生。在我们目前严重依赖进口的行业，如中国的钢铁和铝，增加制造业可能需要时间。此外，我们的许多进口产品，尤其是从加拿大进口的，都是我们根本没有足够的原材料。
盖略特莫里斯:关税提高了外国商品的价格，由于从事贸易的公司喜欢赚钱，这些价格上涨被转嫁到消费者身上。与其说这是一个计划或预测的问题，不如说这是一个事实该工具如何工作。商品关税->进口商商品价格上涨->进口商提高经销商价格等等->这些公司提高消费者价格。
证明这一点的典型方法是，如果进口价格上涨，那么人们就会涌向美国制造的商品。但这种假设有三点是不正确的:(a)美国有大量替代商品供应所有受影响的商业(看看你，鳄梨);(b)美国公司不会为了增加利润而提高价格以与外国进口产品的价格相匹配(而是价格均衡典型方法货物的旧成本+新关税);以及(c)供求法则不适用于美国本地商品(因为需求增加会提高价格)。所以真的有消费者可能遭受损失的多种方式从这些政策中。
这种情况的下游影响可能相当严重。例如，减少墨西哥商品的进口将损害墨西哥经济，这也可能加剧边境问题。
nrakich:我们说的有多严重?比如，经济衰退?2022年夏季的通胀水平?
盖略特莫里斯:美国几乎进口了价值4400亿美元的中国商品去年，它们都将涨价10%。那就是像电子产品(iPhones!)和许多基本制成品，鉴于美国国内的劳动力成本，这些产品在美国制造太贵了。
如果特朗普真的对加拿大和墨西哥征收关税，后果可能会更糟。杂货价格即使上涨10%，也将与我们在2022年夏天看到的通胀相当。25%几乎相当于2021年至2024年国内食品消费价格指数的整体涨幅。
莫妮卡·波茨:这真的取决于什么生效，但加拿大，墨西哥和中国一起几乎占了我们贸易的一半。汽车是尤其依赖北美贸易这不仅仅是指进口原材料或成品汽车，还包括制造过程中的许多零部件。我们在杂货店里发现的大部分新鲜农产品都产自墨西哥。征收这些关税也可能引发贸易战，损害我们的出口。所以这可能会引发混乱。
这很有趣，因为反击全球自由贸易是20世纪90年代末和21世纪初年轻左派的视野主要是因为他们担心像世界贸易组织和国际货币基金组织这样的组织的目标会导致劳动法被绕过和不公平的工资。但特朗普有一套不同的目标，所以不清楚会发生什么。
杨:对，正如莫妮卡所说，我们还必须考虑报复性关税其他国家威胁要对美国出口产品征收关税。加拿大提出的报复性关税引起了极大的关注，包括代表严重依赖与邻国贸易的州或地区的共和党议员。例如，肯塔基州参议员米奇·麦康奈尔公开反对特朗普的关税，尤其是因为影响报复性关税会对他所在州庞大的波旁威士忌产业产生影响。
鉴于其他可能对美国农业产生负面影响的政府举措(即主要由共和党人代表的农村地区)，这种反弹也尤为强烈。爱荷华州参议员查克·格拉斯利呼吁特朗普包括免除从加拿大大量进口的钾肥关税。美国国际开发署从美国农民手中购买粮食并运往国外的粮食援助项目的取消敲响了警钟也是。
nrakich:这听起来很糟糕!那么，在这么多经济学家反对的情况下，特朗普为什么要征收/威胁所有这些关税?
杨:好吧，特朗普明确地将关税作为讨价还价或杠杆工具，而不仅仅是经济工具。他一直关注着解决美国的“贸易赤字”(我们进口的商品比出口的多这个事实)，这仍然是他说辞的很大一部分。但特别是当他提出对来自加拿大和墨西哥的进口商品征收25%关税的激进提议时，他挥舞着关税，作为对边境安全和打击芬太尼等毒品进口等非经济问题施加压力的一种方式。
事实上，一个Atlas Intel的民意调查实际上，与“保护美国制造业”的全面关税相比，对“作为谈判策略”提高特定国家关税的支持要高得多。问题是，美国人不希望这些关税成为实际政策。加拿大和墨西哥(尤其是加拿大)的关税是特别不受欢迎我认为这部分是因为美国人更加意识到这些关税会对他们的生活产生重大影响。一;一个算盘数据调查特别表明绝大多数人重视美国和加拿大之间的自由贸易。
我还要指出，不受欢迎的北美关税将有效撤销其中一个更受欢迎特朗普第一个任期的成就是美国-墨西哥-加拿大协议，该协议彻底改革了三国之间的贸易政策。在Abacus Data的调查中，52%的美国人认为美国管理认证协会对美国来说是好的或非常好的，38%的人持中立态度，只有10%的人认为不好。
盖略特莫里斯:关于加拿大的另一件事是:特朗普的钢铁和铝关税对加拿大造成了独特的伤害，今天的关税是25%，但很快可能高达50%(一名官员表示，整体和基于钢铁的关税将“堆叠”在彼此之上).
我可能会有点厚颜无耻，但这些关税尤其符合特朗普的两个更广泛的目标:首先，兑现承诺他对钢铁工人工会的承诺——可以说是保护了一个至关重要的美国产业。第二，惩罚加拿大不认真对待他的愿望吞并这个国家成为我们的第51个州。(看起来特朗普确实对我们的北方邻居非常着迷。)
杨:还是没有他的奇怪对格陵兰的痴迷!
莫妮卡·波茨:实际上，我认为对格陵兰岛的痴迷更有意义——但那是不同的话题，哈哈。
然而，更严重的是:特朗普可能只是威胁墨西哥和加拿大作为一种谈判策略，但不清楚他是否会真的有所成就和他们一起。两国都已经制定了计划，打击芬太尼通过他们与美国的边境，并在边境部署更多的安全措施。就加拿大而言，边境安全部门仅缴获了约0.2%的芬太尼和他们一起穿过我们的边境。
这是关于关税总体影响的一个更广泛的观点。同样，如果目标是增加美国制造业的就业机会，那是有争议的。建造新的东西需要一段时间——甚至是不可能的!比如，当特朗普在哥伦比亚总统短暂拒绝接受载有被驱逐移民的航班后威胁对哥伦比亚征收关税时，哥伦比亚让步了。但是如果没有呢?我们最大的进口商品之一哥伦比亚是咖啡，而美国大部分地区不适合种植咖啡(虽然我们确实生产一些).所以我们会从其他国家进口，我们可能会付出更多，因为从这些国家进口成本更高，而且可能不匹配美国消费者的口味等。
顺便说一句，这就是贸易的全部意义:各国可以专注于他们擅长的领域，如果这些商品可以在国界之间自由流动，每个人都会获得价值(理论上)。
盖略特莫里斯:是啊，说到这一点，莫妮卡，美国人民对特朗普的耐心可能很快就会耗尽。周三公布的CPI显示通货膨胀又上升了一月份。如果前总统乔·拜登的任期是一个指标，那么这肯定会让你发现自己与美国人民格格不入。
杨:晨间咨询的消费者情绪指数也引起了我的注意，并表明公众可能已经对关税的潜在经济影响做出了负面反应，这已经成为几周以来的焦点。消费者信心自1月25日选举后的高点以来已经下降，与选举后的积极趋势相反。
另一个上午咨询调查显示很少有人希望特朗普优先考虑关税(23%)，但许多人看到他这样做(47%)。
盖略特莫里斯:我从民意调查中得出的总体结论是，政府对关税的公开辩护很受欢迎，但政策实施却不受欢迎。例如，一个协同/高效轮询从1月下旬发现，49%的美国人赞成“特朗普总统征收关税以恢复美国就业并确保公平国际贸易的计划”，而42%的人不赞成。这很有道理:谁会不支持公平和就业呢?
但是数字不是细节。当...的时候益普索/路透社当被问及美国人是否希望征收关税，即使这意味着价格会上涨时，只有30%的美国人表示愿意;47%的人说没有。
这是一个我们在移民投票中看到的主题，也是;人们普遍希望确保南部边境的安全，减少移民，但他们反对随之而来的事情，反对政府的严格执法政策，如在学校或教堂逮捕移民，以及将孩子与他们的无证父母分开。
因此，由于目标和实施之间的这种分歧，你会看到一个真正倾向于传递信息的政府。特朗普称他的行动对美国的国家利益来说是必要的，即使这意味着成本上升。我认为大多数人不太可能同意这种权衡是值得的。
莫妮卡·波茨:有趣的是，这一信息——如果美国人坚持下去，可能会有短期的痛苦，但长期的利益是值得的——对拜登政府来说并不奏效，因为它说价格上涨是因为疫情之后的供需冲击事情正在好转。
特朗普在竞选中主张降低价格。讽刺的是。
What do Americans think about Trump's tariffs?
Welcome to 538's politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
nrakich(Nathaniel Rakich, senior editor and elections analyst): Let's partylike it's 1890, because it's tariff time, baby! On Thursday, President Donald Trumpannounced reciprocal tariffsfor virtually every country — meaning the U.S. will now levy the same amount on imports from a given country that that country levies on goods from the U.S. This, of course, is the culmination of a recent tariff spree from the White House: Earlier this week, he imposed a25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports— generally understood to be aimed at China, although it affects U.S. allies like Canada as well — and at the beginning of the month imposed a10 percent tariff onallgoods from China. (He has, for now, backed down from harsher tariffs on Canada and Mexico that were planned at the same time.)
Of the many executive actions Trump has taken in office so far, these tariffs have the potential to be among the most consequential for the largest number of Americans. So how do Americans feel about them?
tia.yang(Tia Yang, senior editor): Americans overall are fairly split over tariffs.Broadlyspeaking,pollsthisyearhaveshownthat increased or new tariffs are slightly unpopular among the public. At least two-thirds of Republicans tend to support them, while a larger share of Democrats consistently oppose them.
But these numbers are still highly subject to change as Americans learn more about tariffs and their actual impacts. Right after the election, there was this trend where people were suddenly googling how tariffs worked, because it's sort of a wonky foreign/economic policy area that most voters probably hadn't thought much about. I think that's still true as this battle over Trump's tariff policies is still heating up.
nrakich:Yep,Google searches for "tariff"increased right after the election, although the really big spike occurred at the beginning of February when Trump was engaged in that standoff with Canada and Mexico.
Monica Potts(Monica Potts, senior politics reporter): In addition to what Tia said, one thing that has struck me most in looking at the survey data on how Americans feel about these tariffs is just how much uncertainty there is around them. In polls from this year, the percentage of respondents who chose "neither" or "not sure" when asked whether they supported or opposed tariffs has been as high as25 percent. That's not surprising: While voters understand that tariffs are taxes charged on imported goods, they're also a pretty complicated policy issue. So it makes sense that the results of tariff polling vary depending on how the question is asked, what kind of tariffs we're talking about, etc.
gelliottmorris(G. Elliott Morris, editorial director of data analytics): You know, Monica, you've reminded me thatmost Americans don't pay attention to politicspretty much at all, and when pollsters ask them to express an opinion, many are giving their first impression based on what little they may have heard about the issue, not necessarily an informed attitude. That's not to say we should ignore these polls — just that we have to be careful interpreting them.
Monica Potts:Right, I imagine many Americans are still forming their opinions based on what they're hearing about the latest news.
tia.yang:Severalof therecentpolls on this topichave askedboth how Americans feel about tariffs and what they think the effects of those tariffs will be — and found that support for tariffs is mixed even as a solid majority (between 60 and 70 percent) consistently think those tariffs will increase the cost of goods in the U.S. However, the question about whether they think tariffs will drive up costs tends to be asked after the question about whether they support the tariffs. Support may be lowerwhen costs are directly mentionedin the question about support for tariffs.
For example, in aYouGov surveyfrom January, just over half of those who initially said they'd favor increased tariffs on imported goods said they would still do so "even if that leads to higher prices for American consumers," while 20 percent said they would no longer support the tariffs. The rest were unsure.
In aNavigator Research poll, 37 percent of registered voters supported Trump's tariff plan and 41 percent opposed it, while at least 6 in 10 said tariffs would raise prices, similar to other polls. But what really caught my eye was another question that asked whether those higher costs were worth it "if it helped to keep American manufacturing strong and protected American jobs." A slim plurality said it was worth it. That was driven largely by Republicans, 69 percent of whom said the trade-off was worth it. In comparison, only 21 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents said so.
So Americans' support for Trump's tariff policies may hinge on not only whether prices go up, but also whether they see positive impacts on other economic metrics, like jobs.
Monica Potts:For what it's worth, though, many economists don't thinktariffs would be the best toolfor the things Americans do want, like increasing jobs. Tariffs would raise some revenue for the government, but it would be hard to make them cover thetax cuts Trump is proposing. They do protect some domestic sectors when it makes sense, but broad-based tariffs could harm more than they help.
So tariffs are kind of a blunt tool and negotiating tactic that Trump is using when the goals Americans really care about are more easily achieved through other policies.
nrakich:We're starting to get into a discussion of the economic impacts of the tariffs, which was going to be my next question. Would they really hurt the economy as much as Trump's critics are warning?
Monica Potts:I think most economists agree that tariffs would immediately increase consumer prices, to the tune of about$100 a month by some estimates. For what it's worth, many economistsdon't like tariffs. Not to get too wonky, but they just shift money from consumers to governments and producers — but not even that much money. Some of the value and efficiencies we get from trade are simply lost.
There's another potential political cost as well. Watching Trump's threats of high tariffs, backing off, threatening again, etc., may simply make ourtrading partners wary of us. Trump paused his plans to impose tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, but do those countries' leaders and companies know that the U.S. is still a solid trading partner? What if Trump wants something else? Is he going to threaten tariffs every time he wants something? That could drive our allies into the arms of other big trading partners, like China. Companies just want to sell their goods; they don't want to be bargaining chips.
Additionally, Trump's stated goal ofincreasing American manufacturingwon't happen without other domestic policy changes that increase the potential for it. And it could take time to ramp up manufacturing in sectors where we currently rely heavily on imports, like steel and aluminum from China. Plus, so many of our imports, especially from Canada, are raw materials that we simply don't have enough of.
gelliottmorris:Tariffs raise the prices of foreign goods and, because companies dealing with trade like to make money, those price hikes get passed on to consumers. This is not really a matter of projections or forecasting so much as it is a fact ofhow the tool works. Tariffs on goods --> prices of those goods rise for importers --> importers raise prices for distributors and the like --> those companies raise prices on consumers.
The typical way this gets justified is that if prices for imports go up, then people will just flock to American-made goods. But that assumes three things that are simply not true: (a) that the U.S. has replacement goods in large supply for all affected commerce (looking at you, avocados); (b) that American companies would not raise prices to match those of foreign imports in order to increase profits (but price equilibriumtypically approachesthe old cost of the good + the new tariff); and (c) that the laws of supply and demand do not apply to local American goods (as increased demand increases prices). So there are reallymultiple ways in which consumers could sufferfrom these policies.
The downstream effects of this could be quite severe. For example, decreasing imports of Mexican goods will hurt the Mexican economy, which could also exacerbate the problems at the border.
nrakich:How severe are we talking? Like, recession? Summer-of-2022-level inflation?
gelliottmorris:Well, America imported almost$440 billion worth of goods from Chinalast year, and they're all about to get 10 percent more expensive. That's stuff like electronics (iPhones!) and a lot of basic manufactured goods that are too expensive to make in the U.S. given domestic labor costs.
If Trump does go through with his tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the consequences could be even worse. Grocery prices rising by even 10 percent would match the inflation we saw in the summer of 2022. Twenty-five percent would nearly match the entire increase in the consumer price index for food at home from 2021 to 2024.
Monica Potts:It really depends on what goes into effect, but Canada, Mexico and China togethermake up almost half of our trade. Cars areespecially dependent on North American trade, and that's not just about imported raw materials or finished cars, but many of the components and parts that are part of the manufacturing process. Mexico grows most of the fresh produce we find in grocery stores. And imposing these tariffs could also just start a trade war that hurts our exports, too. So it could unleash chaos.
It's interesting because fighting back against global free trade was thepurview of the young left in the late 1990s and early 2000s, largely because they feared that the goals of organizations like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund would result in labor laws getting bypassed and unfair wages. But Trump has a different set of goals, so it's not clear what will happen.
tia.yang:Right, as Monica just said, we also have to consider the impacts ofretaliatory tariffsthat other countries have threatened to impose on American exports. The retaliatory tariffs proposed by Canada have prompted significant concern, including among Republican lawmakers who represent states or districts that depend heavily on trade with neighboring countries. For example, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell hasspoken out againstTrump's tariffs, not least because ofthe impactsthat retaliatory tariffs would have on his state's huge bourbon industry.
This backlash is particularly potent too in light of other administration moves that could negatively impact American agriculture (i.e., rural areas largely represented by Republicans). Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassleycalled for Trumpto include a tariff exemption for potash, a fertilizer imported in large quantities from Canada. And the dismantling of USAID food assistance programs that purchase food from American farmers to send abroad hasraised alarm bellsas well.
nrakich:That all sounds pretty bad! So why is Trump imposing/threatening all these tariffs when so many economists are opposed to them?
tia.yang:Well, Trump is explicitly using tariffs as a bargaining or leverage tool, not just an economic one. He has long been focused onaddressing America's "trade deficit"(the fact that we import more goods than we export), and that's still a big part of his rhetoric. But especially when it comes to his aggressive proposals of 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, he's brandishing tariffs as a way to exert pressure on non-economic issues like border security and cracking down on the importation of drugs like fentanyl.
In fact, onepoll from Atlas Intelactually found much higher support for raising tariffs against specific countries "as a negotiation tactic" than for across-the-board tariffs "to protect U.S. manufacturing." The problem is, Americans don't want those tariffs to become actual policy. Tariffs on Canada and Mexico (especially Canada) areparticularly unpopular, and I think that's in part because Americans are more aware that these tariffs would majorly impact their lives. AnAbacus Data surveyspecifically showed that overwhelming majorities value free trade between the U.S. and Canada.
I'd also note that unpopular North American tariffs wouldeffectively undoone of themore popularaccomplishments of Trump's first term, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which overhauled trade policy between the three countries. In the Abacus Data survey, 52 percent of Americans said the USMCA was good or very good for the U.S. Thirty-eight percent said it was neutral, and just 10 percent said it was bad.
gelliottmorris:The other thing about Canada: It's uniquely hurt by Trump's steel and aluminium tariffs, which today are 25 percent but could be as high as 50 percent soon (an official said the overall and steel-based tariffs would"stack" on top of each other).
I'm about to be a bit cheeky here, but these tariffs in particular fit two of Trump's broader goals: first, to deliver onpromises he made to the steelworkers' union— and arguably protect a vital American industry. And second, to punish Canada for not being more serious about his desire toannex the country as our 51st state. (And it does seem like Trump has a pretty particular obsession with our northern neighbor.)
tia.yang:Still less weird than hisobsession with Greenland!
Monica Potts:I actually think the obsession with Greenland makes more sense — but that's a different chat, LOL.
More seriously, though: Trump may just be threatening Mexico and Canada as a negotiating tactic, but it's not clear that hereally achieved anythingwith them. Both had already made plans to crack down on fentanyl passing through their borders with the U.S. and deploy more security to the borders. In the case of Canada,only about 0.2 percent of seizures of fentanyl captured by border securitycome through our border with them.
This is a broader point about the effects tariffs might have overall. Again, if the goal is to increase American manufacturing jobs,that's debatable. It would take a while to build new things — and it might not even be possible! For example, when Trump threatened Colombia with tariffs after its president briefly refused to accept a flight carrying deported immigrants,Colombia backed down. But what if it hadn't? One of our biggest imports fromColombia is coffee, and most of the U.S. isn't suited to growing coffee (although we do produce some). So we would just import it from other countries, and we might pay more because importing it from those countries costs more, and it might not matchAmerican consumer tastes, etc.
This is, incidentally, the whole point of trade: Countries can concentrate on what they're good at and everyone gains value (in theory) if those goods can flow freely between borders.
gelliottmorris:Yeah, and to that point, Monica, the American people's patience with Trump may soon run out. Wednesday's CPI release showedinflation had risen againin January. If former President Joe Biden's tenure is any indicator, that is a surefire way to find yourself on the outs with the American people.
tia.yang:Morning Consult's consumer sentiment indexalso caught my eye and showed that the public may already be responding negatively to the potential economic impacts of tariffs, which have been in the spotlight for a couple of weeks now. Consumer confidence has fallen since its post-election high point on Jan. 25, in a reversal of the positive trend that followed the election.
AnotherMorning Consult surveyshowed that few want Trump to prioritize tariffs (23 percent), but many see him doing so (47 percent).
gelliottmorris:My overall takeaway from the polling is that the administration's public justification for the tariffs is popular, but the policy implementation isn't. For example, aco/efficient pollfrom late January found that 49 percent of Americans approved "of President Trump's plan to impose tariffs to bring back American jobs and ensure fair international trade," while 42 percent disapproved. That makes sense: Who wouldn't favor fairness and jobs?
But the numbers just ain't there for the details. WhenIpsos/Reutersasked Americans if they wanted tariffs even if it meant prices would go up, only 30 percent of Americans said yes; 47 percent said no.
This is atheme we've seen with immigration polling, too; people generally want to secure the southern border and reduce immigration, but they oppose the things that go along with that, the administration's strict enforcement policies such as arresting migrants at school or church and separating kids from their undocumented parents.
So because of this divide between goals and implementation, you get an administration that is really leaning into its messaging. Trump has pitched his actions as necessary for America's national interests, even if that means costs go up. I think it's unlikely that most people will agree the trade-offs are worth it.
Monica Potts:It's interesting that this messaging — that there might be short-term pain but the long-term benefits would be worth it if Americans just hold on — didn't work for the Biden administration when it said prices had risen because ofsupply and demand shocks after the pandemicand that things were getting better.
And Trump campaigned on lowering prices. The irony.
