And while I'm here, I want to go (back) on the record saying these steel and aluminium tariffs are a terrible idea, and Trump is categorically wrong when he says trade wars are "
easy to win". The national security excuse is bollocks too, Russia's the fifth biggest steel importer (China isn't even in the top 10) and the second biggest aluminium importer and China the fourth biggest, yet steel's getting the 25% tariff and aluminium 10%. Meanwhile, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and Australia are the ones actually getting hit hardest.
In return, if China wants to hit back it won't go tit-for-tat on steel. It'll put tariffs on net US export industries - hitting something more like dairy, aircraft manufacturing, soybeans or corn. Historically the gains made in protected sectors have been negligible, but more than offset by losses in other sectors. Going back and forth as Trump seems to be willing to do simply compounds those losses across the board. There are no winners in a trade war, the objective is simply to lose less seriously than everyone else.
Meanwhile, the tariffs ignore the reasons the US is a net importer of these things in the first place: the US simply isn't producing enough or the stuff that is being produced isn't good enough or cost-effective enough. Unless anyone here is buying aluminium and bauxite for their own personal use, that
1268.34 million USD of imports goes to other producers - such as Herschy's or Budweiser. Slapping on tariffs is adding to the cost of production for every single producer that uses steel or aluminium, which either gets absorbed as a loss or gets passed on to the consumer as a price hike. Change the 25% tariff on steel to a 25% consumption tax on steel (which is what it is) and it gets clearer who the ultimate loser is. Again, all this to do more damage to allied nations while ignoring the costs to other sectors.
