jwhaby said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

I'm not arguing against tariffs in all cases because they make sense in some applications. But I am pushing back on any notion that none of the tariffs showed up in inflation. There are plenty of data points in the media from nonpartisan economists that demonstrate some of that cost was passed onto consumers. Our inflation target has been 2% for at least a couple decades. PCE inflation came in at 3% in December and expected to notch up a bit in January. Tariffs are part of that. You can make the case the benefit is worth the cost but anybody clinging to a view that consumers aren't absorbing any tariff cost is being willfully blind to the facts.

---

A quick Google search is showing that the TTM inflation rate ended January 2026 was about 2.4%. While this is higher than the target of 2.0%, it's still lower than the average inflation rate over the past 20 years of 2.6%. In the grand scheme of things there has been virtually zero inflation associated with Trump's tariffs. Maybe you have a better metric than CPI that shows how these tariffs are impacting US consumers.

---

Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) inflation is a flawed metric to estimate the impact of tariffs because it contains three months (Jan-Mar) of data before Trump even announced his tariffs. It's also widely acknowledged it takes some time for tariffs to show up in consumer pricing data because of the time required to work thru the supply chain. Most economists were saying tariff impacts wouldn't really begin to be felt until Q4 of 2025 and the first half of 2026.

PCE -- the Fed's favorite measure of consumer inflation -- just reported at 3.0% for December and is expected to potentially move up further in January, with tariffs playing a role. 3% isn't a disaster, but it is meaningfully above the 2% target. Big brands and big retail are already on record saying they would increase prices last year to pass along some of the tariff impacts.

A wide range of well respected economists -- and Fed officials themselves -- are on record stating that tariffs are contributing to inflation. How much is the key question. It's incorrect to say that all of the tariffs are being passed thru to consumers, because some of them are being eaten by the foreign supplier, the importer, or the brand. And it's also incorrect to say that none of them are passing thru either, because the brands themselves have said they're raising prices due to tariffs, and they're showing up in the inflation data.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Underlying U.S. inflation increased more than expected in December, and signs are pointing to a further acceleration in January, which would strengthen expectations that the Federal Reserve would not cut interest rates before June.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the so-called core PCE price index climbing 0.3%. In the 12 months through December, core PCE inflation advanced 3.0% after increasing 2.8% in November.

---

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-pce-inflation-heats-december-134652023.html

Quote:

---

From Google AI: Yes, tariffs are appearing in U.S. inflation data, contributing approximately 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to headline inflation as of late 2025. Increased costs are particularly visible in imported goods like furniture, appliances, and clothing. While companies initially absorbed costs, many are now passing them on to consumers, pushing up prices.

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

Have not seen the form. I will take a look.

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

---

I am not buying U. S. products in another country.

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

The one that I first noticed was from a company based out of Switzerland that I buy materials from. There was a global trade adjustment fee of several hundred dollars each order. I called about it and was told it was a direct result of the tariffs. I also asked the rep from another supplier I do a lot of business with and was told they had increased their fees as well due to the new tariffs. I don't really know the exact details on how the tariffs work but I can tell you 100% they have increased my costs. If it's paying down our national debt I guess that's great but it is certainly not entirely at other countries expense.

---

That's unfortunate. I work in real estate development and my industry really hasn't seen an increase in materials costs. We thought there would be a bigger impact on steel, but it never materialized.

Pinochet said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

I think it is strange that the court can issue an opinion on what a statute meant but didn't specify. Pandora's box can't contain so much BS.

---

Huh? What if they just ruled on the specific question and said the statute didn't allow something?

---

And it also did not disallow tariffs. All means to accomplish what the law allowed were not specified. Putting corporate profits and cheap consumer goods ahead of national security is a loser for liberty and the majority of US citizens, Global elite love it.

Not so bold take.,. SCOTUS will rule 5-4 refunds are owed. This will likely been in Vance/Rubio's 1st term and the amounts (plus interest) will be paid from the additional tariffs collected over the previous 5 years due to the increases Trump put in to counteract the SCOTUS decision.

I think most of us are just fine with that outcome.

Pinochet said:

---

chilimuybueno said:

---

I'd love to see the calculations for any supposed refunds. There is no right answer, and probably not even good answers. Some lawyers and accountants and others will try and justify something. And those guys will likely be the only people that actually receive any money.

---

It's literally on a form that you filed with CBP. There is an actual answer to the dollar. How is it hard to calculate?

---

UPS left me a note for a package with an exact dollar figure (check or pay online to UPS).

They wouldn't drop it off until I paid the tariff.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

docb said:

---

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

No refunds for us, the one's that absorbed most of it. Looks like we got screwed on that one.

---

If American citizens were the ones who "absorbed" the tariffs, why did inflation not increase above 3.0%? Seems like it's the manufacturers and distributors that paid the tariffs, no? Maybe it's them that deserves a refund.

---

To clarify I paid them in my business. Still sucks.

---

Honest question. Do you manufacture overseas or do you import goods? It sounds like Trumps tariffs were working if the US is collecting billions of dollars and the consumer isn't paying more through inflation. Isn't this what we want as a country?

---

I'm not arguing against tariffs in all cases because they make sense in some applications. But I am pushing back on any notion that none of the tariffs showed up in inflation. There are plenty of data points in the media from nonpartisan economists that demonstrate some of that cost was passed onto consumers. Our inflation target has been 2% for at least a couple decades. PCE inflation came in at 3% in December and expected to notch up a bit in January. Tariffs are part of that. You can make the case the benefit is worth the cost but anybody clinging to a view that consumers aren't absorbing any tariff cost is being willfully blind to the facts.

---

A quick Google search is showing that the TTM inflation rate ended January 2026 was about 2.4%. While this is higher than the target of 2.0%, it's still lower than the average inflation rate over the past 20 years of 2.6%. In the grand scheme of things there has been virtually zero inflation associated with Trump's tariffs. Maybe you have a better metric than CPI that shows how these tariffs are impacting US consumers.

---

Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) inflation is a flawed metric to estimate the impact of tariffs because it contains three months (Jan-Mar) of data before Trump even announced his tariffs. It's also widely acknowledged it takes some time for tariffs to show up in consumer pricing data because of the time required to work thru the supply chain. Most economists were saying tariff impacts wouldn't really begin to be felt until Q4 of 2025 and the first half of 2026.

PCE -- the Fed's favorite measure of consumer inflation -- just reported at 3.0% for December and is expected to potentially move up further in January, with tariffs playing a role. 3% isn't a disaster, but it is meaningfully above the 2% target. Big brands and big retail are already on record saying they would increase prices last year to pass along some of the tariff impacts.

A wide range of well respected economists -- and Fed officials themselves -- are on record stating that tariffs are contributing to inflation. How much is the key question. It's incorrect to say that all of the tariffs are being passed thru to consumers, because some of them are being eaten by the foreign supplier, the importer, or the brand. And it's also incorrect to say that none of them are passing thru either, because the brands themselves have said they're raising prices due to tariffs, and they're showing up in the inflation data.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Underlying U.S. inflation increased more than expected in December, and signs are pointing to a further acceleration in January, which would strengthen expectations that the Federal Reserve would not cut interest rates before June.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the so-called core PCE price index climbing 0.3%. In the 12 months through December, core PCE inflation advanced 3.0% after increasing 2.8% in November.

---

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-pce-inflation-heats-december-134652023.html

Quote:

---

From Google AI: Yes, tariffs are appearing in U.S. inflation data, contributing approximately 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to headline inflation as of late 2025. Increased costs are particularly visible in imported goods like furniture, appliances, and clothing. While companies initially absorbed costs, many are now passing them on to consumers, pushing up prices.

---

---

If you want to use PCE, that metric averaged 2.8% over the last three months of 2025. That's still below the PCE annual average of 3.23%-3.29% (I've seen different figures online) between 1960 and 2025. Again, the statistics would show that even though we're above the Fed's inflation target of 2%, there's really been no inflation lately from a historical perspective.

You can claim that tariffs will lead to inflation in the future, but so far that hasn't shown to be true. I'm sure that you can point to many economists that will agree with you, but they're probably the same people that said the inflationary effects of the 2021 American Rescue Plan would be "transitory".

All I know is that Trump has collected somewhere between $133-$200 billion in tariffs, inflation hasn't increased meaningfully, and we've started to onshore critical manufacturing which is good for national security and our middle class. What is there to complain about?

Why don't you get back to me in 6-9 months and let's see where we're at. I'm happy to eat crow if PCE averages above 3.5% in 2026. Anything less than that is just taking our medicine and the cost of getting our country back on the right track.

jwhaby said:

---

All I know is that Trump has collected somewhere between $133-$200 billion in tariffs, inflation hasn't increased meaningfully, and we've started to onshore critical manufacturing which is good for national security and our middle class. What is there to complain about?

Why don't you get back to me in 6-9 months and let's see where we're at. I'm happy to eat crow if PCE averages above 3.5% in 2026. Anything less than that is just taking our medicine and the cost of getting our country back on the right track.

---

Whether the benefits of tariffs are worth the costs is debatable. I can see examples on either side of that debate, some good and some not. I'm not worked up about it one way or the other.

What I do object to are absolute statements by either side to "spin it" and try to parrot a message that's obviously full of holes. An example would be a statement that the full cost of tariffs is being passed on to consumers, or that consumers aren't bearing any of the costs.

And inflation of 3.5% isn't going to be good for this country. It's a tax that continually erodes purchasing power. Affordability is a huge issue right now for most voters. We'll see that reflected in the upcoming midterms.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

All I know is that Trump has collected somewhere between $133-$200 billion in tariffs, inflation hasn't increased meaningfully, and we've started to onshore critical manufacturing which is good for national security and our middle class. What is there to complain about?

Why don't you get back to me in 6-9 months and let's see where we're at. I'm happy to eat crow if PCE averages above 3.5% in 2026. Anything less than that is just taking our medicine and the cost of getting our country back on the right track.

---

Whether the benefits of tariffs are worth the costs is debatable. I can see examples on either side of that debate, some good and some not. I'm not worked up about it one way or the other.

What I do object to are absolute statements by either side to "spin it" and try to parrot a message that's obviously full of holes. An example would be a statement that the full cost of tariffs is being passed on to consumers, or that consumers aren't bearing any of the costs.

And inflation of 3.5% isn't going to be good for this country. It's a tax that continually erodes purchasing power. Affordability is a huge issue right now for most voters. We'll see that reflected in the upcoming midterms.

---

Again, on the whole, inflation hasn't materialized because of Trump's tariffs. That's not debatable. This may change in the future, but it's hasn't so far. We will see who is right over the coming year. I hope I am, as it would be good for the country.

Ciboag96 said:

---

The left is fighting tariffs because it's Trump. Look what that goat poker is doing in NYC.

Next Marxist President is going to make tariffs seem like child's play

---

This. The next Dem President will keep them in place, just like Biden kept the China tartiffs in place.

jwhaby said:

---

Again, on the whole, inflation hasn't materialized because of Trump's tariffs. That's not debatable. This may change in the future, but it's hasn't so far. We will see who is right over the coming year. I hope I am, as it would be good for the country.

---

You're right it's not debatable, but you're wrong with your statement that tariffs have had no impact on inflation.

From my citations earlier, tariffs are contributing anywhere from 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to current inflation. Brands and retails outlets are on record that they have increased prices to pass along the cost of tariffs.

It's already happening. I wouldn't describe it as a disaster or anything extreme, but to pretend it isn't happening is just wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

From Google AI: Yes, tariffs are appearing in U.S. inflation data, contributing approximately 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to headline inflation as of late 2025. Increased costs are particularly visible in imported goods like furniture, appliances, and clothing. While companies initially absorbed costs, many are now passing them on to consumers, pushing up prices.

---

Yall still think these will be refunded in the next 4 years lol and with the new tarrifs imposed its just re-arranging money.

AGpops1923 said:

---

So the corps want a refund on the tariffs they paid. But they passed those costs onto us, the consumer. Which means WE paid the tariffs, right? How then, would they be able to keep the refund? That's double dipping in my book.

---

Wealth transfer is bad unless it moves upward.

So the big importing companies get a big ol bonus from consumers. Yaaaaaaaay… /s

This feels like it was by design.

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

---

I am not buying U. S. products in another country.

---

Everything is not about you and your needs.

This is about the country as a whole.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

---

I am not buying U. S. products in another country.

---

1. Everything is not about you and your needs.

2. This is about the country as a whole.

---

1. LightenUpFrancis.gif I'm not a CEO.

2. It's about specific US goods and services.

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

---

I am not buying U. S. products in another country.

---

1. Everything is not about you and your needs.

2. This is about the country as a whole.

---

1. LightenUpFrancis.gif I'm not a CEO.

2. It's about specific US goods and services.

---

My point remains that "I am paying more" cannot be a reason to remove tariffs. The job of the government is to do what is collectively right for the citizens long term. We too often think short term thinking we are infallible.

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

heavens11 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Cut out the middleman and don't apply tariffs to begin with.

Tariffs are BS.

---

If only the rest of the world played "fair" you might have a point.

---

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, at influencing my spending habits.

Period.

---

The day other countries eliminate tariffs on us, you will have no reason to complain.

---

I am not buying U. S. products in another country.

---

1. Everything is not about you and your needs.

2. This is about the country as a whole.

---

1. LightenUpFrancis.gif I'm not a CEO.

2. It's about specific US goods and services.

---

My point remains that "I am paying more" cannot be a reason to remove tariffs. The job of the government is to do what is collectively right for the citizens long term. We too often think short term thinking we are infallible.

---

My point remains that I am against all attempts, made any elected official, to influence my spending habits.

infinity ag said:

---

My point remains that "I am paying more" cannot be a reason to remove tariffs. The job of the government is to do what is collectively right for the citizens long term. We too often think short term thinking we are infallible.

---

Of course that can be a reason for removing tariffs. The government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around. We don't elect our leaders and then just salute them when they implement their policies if their policies hurt us. You just watch the upcoming midterms... there's going to be blowback on the party in power because enough people believe they're not better off since the last election.

I don't necessarily believe that. I appreciate the efforts to minimize taxes and reduce regulations, but I can clearly see how some people are struggling and will demand that the government address their concerns. That is Politics 101.

It's apparently closer to $300B in tariff revenue collected. Regardless, that number is inconsequential in light of what we actually need to offset the deficit which is one of the reasons why he wanted to do global tariffs. He will need another $1.2T in tariffs coming in just to break even on the deficit....for 1 whole year.

I wouldnt say it inconsequential, but you're right that it's not nearly enough. Anything we can do to offset and/or reduce is a positive though.

I will say this...love tariffs or hate them: it's amazing that we finally have a President trying to address the unbearable debt we've saddled ourselves with, and he's being vilified for it. And truthfully, it's likely the least painful way to address them.

People are literally arguing, on this thread, if there has even been inflation or not. Think about that in contrast to what happened under Biden. We had nearly uncontrollable inflation, that exponentially raised the cost of everything, and we got nothing for it. Even if there are fractional points of inflation, due to Trump's tariffs, at least we're benefitting from them financially. That 'pain' is obviously minimal, if we are arguing whether or not they even exist, and it's netting hundreds of billions.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I will say this...love tariffs or hate them: it's amazing that we finally have a President trying to address the unbearable debt we've saddled ourselves with, and he's being vilified for it. And truthfully, it's likely the least painful way to address them.

Even if there are fractional points of inflation, due to Trump's tariffs, at least we're benefitting from them financially.

---

Those points are debatable. I voted for Trump three times but so far -- even if his tariffs weren't overruled -- he hasn't made a dent in our national debt. We continue with annual deficits of 6% to 7% and keeping adding to the debt. I appreciate him keeping taxes down, but he and the R Congress didn't offset it with spending cuts. Those are facts... people keep saying he's working to bring down the debt, but he really hasn't.

Are we really benefitting from tariffs? Most experts would say there's a possibility we could in the future if Trump's efforts to re-shore manufacturing actually results in more jobs, higher wages, and inflation under control. That's an "out there in the future" hypothetical, as it takes 2 to 3 years to construct new facilities and hire/train labor. But we are absorbing the costs of those tariffs now... that's why many folks aren't feeling like the future gain is worth today's pain.

Again, I prefer him over the Dems by a country mile, but I also believe in keeping it real when we talk about debt and tariffs.

I think the debate is if it directly affects it or indirectly...but It's all the same pot.

I couldn't agree with you more about spending though. That's the side of the equation we refuse to address, to our demise.

Gordo14 said:

---

The crazy thing is, the entire government is Republican. If this was so important to Donald he could have just gone through the legislative process to pull this off. But the point of the tariffs was to exert limitless, extra-constitutional power which is clearly delegated to a different branch of government. It was part of the push to make it the unitary executive or some form of elected monarchy. The point of the tariffs wasn't explicitly the tariffs it was an erosion of the system of government and American institutions. Through that lens it's easy to understand why Trump is crashing out over this. He's lost his political capital and he's suffered a narcissistic wound similar to when he lost the 2020 election. That's why the case was so important, it finally limited the power of the executive regardless of political party. His power peaked months ago largely because he has no self control or discipline. It also means the state of union on Tuesday is going to be another exercise in public embarrassment for Donald and frankly this country up there with the FIFA Peace Prize, the Board of Peace, his awful Davos speech and so many other moments where his mental illness (narcissism) is put on display for the world to see. Luckily many of us have lost what it means to feel shame because the only virtue that matters is "owning the [insert political slur]". No wonder our current politics is futureless and solely functions around fueling our narcissistic leader.

He's already effectively lost the house and Republican defections are only going to increase as we approach the midterms. Then we'll have a Democrat House and close to a coin flip of a Democrat Senate. Then he'll continue to act out as he flails around. Quack quack.

The real question you should ask yourself, would you be ok if your non preferred political party president had the power Trump has been claiming. If the answer is no, the only way you can support what Trump has done is either that no Democrat will ever win again (delusional) or that no Democrat will ever be allowed to win again (no additional comment necessary). We're more likely than not going to find out in less than 2.5 years what this board thinks about where the limit of executive power should be.

---

I have a different take.

This was a win-win for me as a citizen. If Trump wins, a bunch of taxes are paid by someone that is not me. If Trump loses (he did), executive power is reigned back, something that the SCOTUS justices that Trump picked out have routinely done since 2020.

So, the outcomes were: stronger balance sheet for Treasury or weaker POTUS moving forward after Trump exists the office. How can I lose?

YouBet said:

---

It's apparently closer to $300B in tariff revenue collected. Regardless, that number is inconsequential in light of what we actually need to offset the deficit which is one of the reasons why he wanted to do global tariffs. He will need another $1.2T in tariffs coming in just to break even on the deficit....for 1 whole year.

---

I applaud him for trying. At least he is doing something. Hopefully it slows our descent into the inevitable debt spiral.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

Again, on the whole, inflation hasn't materialized because of Trump's tariffs. That's not debatable. This may change in the future, but it's hasn't so far. We will see who is right over the coming year. I hope I am, as it would be good for the country.

---

You're right it's not debatable, but you're wrong with your statement that tariffs have had no impact on inflation.

From my citations earlier, tariffs are contributing anywhere from 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to current inflation. Brands and retails outlets are on record that they have increased prices to pass along the cost of tariffs.

It's already happening. I wouldn't describe it as a disaster or anything extreme, but to pretend it isn't happening is just wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

From Google AI: Yes, tariffs are appearing in U.S. inflation data, contributing approximately 0.45 to 0.7 percentage points to headline inflation as of late 2025. Increased costs are particularly visible in imported goods like furniture, appliances, and clothing. While companies initially absorbed costs, many are now passing them on to consumers, pushing up prices.

---

---

I'm dubious of that inflation contribution percentage. How is it calculated? Why did economists unanimously claim that tariffs would cause massive inflation yet they've had minimal impact? Maybe they were wrong. Maybe this contribution percentage calculation is wrong as well, especially if it's done by the same economists.

Regardless, you take me as the type of person that would still complain if inflation was running at 1.0% and tariffs were causing half of it.

The US needs to rebuild its critical manufacturing base (at least for goods affecting health and national security) and build up its middle class. If we have to endure a little inflation (negligible amount) to accomplish this then so be it. You can't miss the forest for the trees.

jwhaby said:

---

Regardless, you take me as the type of person that would still complain if inflation was running at 1.0% and tariffs were causing half of it.

If we have to endure a little inflation (negligible amount) to accomplish this then so be it. You can't miss the forest for the trees.

---

One percent would be approaching perfect. Two has been the target for a long time and we've managed fine. Three and beyond starts to seriously erode purchasing power over time and hurt people.

More than anything, I'm just looking for an honest conversation on the topic instead of the attempts by some to "spin it" into talking points that are clearly false... either that tariffs are causing extreme inflation, or that they aren't contributing to inflation at all. Being honest about the issues we face is fundamental to finding solutions.

I think we've made progress in our back and forth, and I hope you have a nice evening.

You too.