According to the BBC's online news site it's the American people who are paying for Trump's foray into international relations, with price increases due to tariffs being born pretty much exclusively by his own citizens. Countries exporting to the US remain relatively unaffected by his tariffs and can laugh them off.

Any 5yr old could have predicted this but clearly the <derogatory nickname edited out> intellect is so stunted by ego that he failed to see the inevitable outcome. I'm now waiting expectantly for the equally inevitable push-back by the US electorate who were not feeling happy about the rising prices even before they foolishly allowed Trump back into office.

CNN reporting the same. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/12/business/trump-tariffs-consumers-nightcap

A year in, it’s official: Americans, not foreigners, are paying for Trump’s tariffs

What are some of the Trump fans take on this?

14 minutes ago, marin said:

What are some of the Trump fans take on this?

Simples. Buy less imported crap. Make more in the USA, even if the quality costs more. Put more 'Muricans to work in manufacturing.

Do you really think it's a good idea to import almost a $Trillion more than you export every year? How long before your piggy bank breaks?

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

Simples. Buy less imported crap. Make more in the USA, even if the quality costs more. Put more 'Muricans to work in manufacturing.

Do you really think it's a good idea to import almost a $Trillion more than you export every year? How long before your piggy bank breaks?

Build more gas guzzling cars that nobody wants to buy.

Start a trade war with Canada and suddenly you can’t sell America goods north of the border.

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Build more gas guzzling cars that nobody wants to buy.

Sure. Blame that on Trump and not on the fidiots at GM and Ford, who suffer from McKinsey's Disease. (Like Boeing)

BTW, how's that shift to EV's going for them, speaking of fidiots making cars that nobody wants to buy?

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

Sure. Blame that on Trump and not on the fidiots at GM and Ford, who suffer from McKinsey's Disease. (Like Boeing)

BTW, how's that shift to EV's going for them, speaking of fidiots making cars that nobody wants to buy?

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

BTW, how's that shift to EV's going for them, speaking of fidiots making cars that nobody wants to buy?

Affirmative , cost to much I guess.

google ai overview :

"EV sales growth in America slowed significantly in 2025, with market share in the fourth quarter dropping to 5.8% from 10.5% in the third, indicating inventory is accumulating on dealership lots rather than selling quickly. While charging infrastructure is expanding rapidly, high prices and consumer hesitation have caused a, "bumpy road"

I suppose some Republicans will call for retirement at 80 and hourly wage at $24 soon and call it patriotism. Project 2025 wins.

58 minutes ago, impulse said:

Simples. Buy less imported crap. Make more in the USA, even if the quality costs more. Put more 'Muricans to work in manufacturing.

Do you really think it's a good idea to import almost a $Trillion more than you export every year? How long before your piggy bank breaks?

"Make more in the USA." Sounds good, but how do you convince American companies to do so? Some products require building facilities that take years to plan and build before anything is made. In other words, easier said than done.

Lets have a look at the idea of Made In America. Perhaps 9 months of so Trump came up with the idea for his own smart phone. To be called the T1 and made in America. Here they are as of today. 4 phones, all used 2 from Samsung, and 2 from Apple. Made in the USA you say? Where are these phones made? Just one more bit of BS from our president and conman in chief.

6 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

"Make more in the USA." Sounds good, but how do you convince American companies to do so?

I'm glad you asked. They have these things called tariffs... Maybe you've heard of them?

Of course, it helps if you can reduce the ridiculous regulations that require years to plan and build and get permits and fight off the NIMBYs and the crazy greens... There's some other Trump bashing threads on that subject.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Build more gas guzzling cars that nobody wants to buy.

Right. Americans want hugely expensive electric cars that will last 6 or 7 years, made by rare earths mined by kids in the Congo, manufactured in China in coal powered factories, that devalue 50% as soon as they drove out of the showroom.

Are we at peak stupidity yet?

2 hours ago, impulse said:

I'm glad you asked. They have these things called tariffs... Maybe you've heard of them?

Of course, it helps if you can reduce the ridiculous regulations that require years to plan and build and get permits and fight off the NIMBYs and the crazy greens... There's some other Trump bashing threads on that subject.

Most companies that manufacture anything are not going to invest in producing a product unless they see a fair return on their investment. How do you plan to force anyone to produce something if they refuse to?

No need to preach about tariffs. One doesn't need an MBA to understand what tariffs are and who pays them.

2 hours ago, impulse said:

I'm glad you asked. They have these things called tariffs... Maybe you've heard of them?

Of course, it helps if you can reduce the ridiculous regulations that require years to plan and build and get permits and fight off the NIMBYs and the crazy greens... There's some other Trump bashing threads on that subject.

Manufacturing jobs (slightly) declined under Trump! Tariffs don't work.

13 minutes ago, candide said:

Manufacturing jobs (slightly) declined under Trump! Tariffs don't work.

Jeez, Louise. Give it time. We don't know where the various tariff rates are going to end up. The Dems and circuit judges are fighting everything Trump is doing. Partly because they disagree, but mostly because it's Trump, and they can't let him succeed, no matter how much they have to damage the country to sabotage him.

I'm not even a fan of managing by tariffs, but what do I know? My biggest hope is that things settle out and become predictable over time. That's what's going to drive long term investment. Predictability.

And having done the import/export thing (on and off) from China, Russia and Korea since 1999, I can tell you it's lopsided. Just like importing American cars into Thailand. They want favorable rates for their exports, but not for their imports.

It's consumers that pay for tariffs, so if you're American, bend over for King Trump.

What a huge surprise that US consumers pay MORE instead of less...

This has already been said from the beginning - but hey - just give Trump some more time. He doesen't loose, it's only the low- and middleclass working people who feel it.

That the US carmakers can't export more - another surprise? Nobody wants these cars outside of the US. But instead of producing what is demanded for the export market they really think that people would buy more US cars because of the tariffs?

Jeez - how stupid one has to be to still not to realize how this works.

So, the BBC is reporting that Trump’s tariffs are hitting ordinary Americans hardest, with higher prices borne almost entirely by U.S. consumers.

Meanwhile, exporting countries seem relatively unaffected and can shrug off the measures.

This raises an interesting question for those ASEAN NOW Forum members who have been highly critical of Thailand’s populist policies, arguing they distort markets and burden taxpayers.

As I see it, Trump’s tariffs are essentially a populist move too, being sold to his loyal supporters as “protecting American jobs”.

BUT, as the BBC article shows, they’ve left the American public footing the bill while foreign exporters remain largely unscathed.

If populist policies in Thailand are condemned for being unsustainable or harmful, shouldn’t the same critique apply to Trump’s protectionist tariffs?

Or do some of those critics of Thai populist policies see a difference between domestic populism (like subsidies or handouts) and international populism (like tariffs and trade wars)?

The same people that pay for corporate income taxes pay for tariffs.

The same people that pay for overregulation pay for tariffs.

The same people that pay the bloated compensation packages of often incompetent government workers pay for tariffs.

The same people that pay the high cost of energy resulting from silly programs pay for tariffs.

All the sudden, with tariffs, the left cares who has to pay.

Tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers but hurt foreign manufacturers. The left hates tariffs and wants to eliminate them.

Corporate income taxes benefit foreign manufacturers and hurt domestic manufacturers. The left loves corporate income taxes and wants to raise them.

'nuff said

12 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

What a huge surprise that US consumers pay MORE instead of less...

This has already been said from the beginning - but hey - just give Trump some more time. He doesen't loose, it's only the low- and middleclass working people who feel it.

That the US carmakers can't export more - another surprise? Nobody wants these cars outside of the US. But instead of producing what is demanded for the export market they really think that people would buy more US cars because of the tariffs?

Jeez - how stupid one has to be to still not to realize how this works.

The left and the BBC also want open borders and mass migration, which benefits the rich on the backs of the poor.

Americans are bearing almost the entire burden of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, according to a blog post by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the most influential regional central bank in the US Federal Reserve System. The study found that 90 percent of the tariffs were absorbed by American consumers and businesses last year.

This contradicts the mantra of Trump and the US government that the levies are primarily passed on to foreign manufacturers. Tariffs are a core instrument of Trump's aggressive trade policy. However, they are also a tax on imports. They are not paid by the foreign manufacturer, but by the company or individual that imports the product into the country.

According to a study by the New York Fed, based on customs data, foreign exporters bear only 10 percent of the customs costs. How US companies and consumers share the remaining 90 percent burden is not broken down.

Yippee-ki-yay, the best president for the US of A?!

9 hours ago, cliveshep said:

According to the BBC's online news site it's the American people who are paying for Trump's foray into international relations, with price increases due to tariffs being born pretty much exclusively by his own citizens. Countries exporting to the US remain relatively unaffected by his tariffs and can laugh them off.

Any 5yr old could have predicted this but clearly the <derogatory nickname edited out> intellect is so stunted by ego that he failed to see the inevitable outcome. I'm now waiting expectantly for the equally inevitable push-back by the US electorate who were not feeling happy about the rising prices even before they foolishly allowed Trump back into office. Frankly I'm amazed that in a country so obsessed with guns that almost anyone can get hold of one that no amateur marksman failed to set things right on Capitol Hill thus far.

Inflation has fallen recently lol

8 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Americans are bearing almost the entire burden of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, according to a blog post by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the most influential regional central bank in the US Federal Reserve System. The study found that 90 percent of the tariffs were absorbed by American consumers and businesses last year.

This contradicts the mantra of Trump and the US government that the levies are primarily passed on to foreign manufacturers. Tariffs are a core instrument of Trump's aggressive trade policy. However, they are also a tax on imports. They are not paid by the foreign manufacturer, but by the company or individual that imports the product into the country.

According to a study by the New York Fed, based on customs data, foreign exporters bear only 10 percent of the customs costs. How US companies and consumers share the remaining 90 percent burden is not broken down.

Yippee-ki-yay, the best president for the US of A?!

Time to start fulminating against the NY FED for trump.

6 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Americans are bearing almost the entire burden of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, according to a blog post by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the most influential regional central bank in the US Federal Reserve System. The study found that 90 percent of the tariffs were absorbed by American consumers and businesses last year.

This contradicts the mantra of Trump and the US government that the levies are primarily passed on to foreign manufacturers. Tariffs are a core instrument of Trump's aggressive trade policy. However, they are also a tax on imports. They are not paid by the foreign manufacturer, but by the company or individual that imports the product into the country.

According to a study by the New York Fed, based on customs data, foreign exporters bear only 10 percent of the customs costs. How US companies and consumers share the remaining 90 percent burden is not broken down.

Yippee-ki-yay, the best president for the US of A?!

Americans bear 100% of corporate income taxes yet the left loves them and wants to raise them.

Tariffs hurt the rich much more than the poor, while corporate income taxes hurt the poor much more than the rich.

A study published last week by the nonpartisan think tank Tax Foundation found that tariffs last year were equivalent to an average tax increase of $1,000 for US households. This year, the figure would be $1,300.

According to the Financial Times, Trump now wants to reduce some tariffs on steel and aluminum products. Last year, Trump imposed tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports. This has led, among other things, to rising prices for canned goods and beverages.

Ah, the ice is getting thinner for the criminal in chief and his admin.

7 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

A study published last week by the nonpartisan think tank Tax Foundation found that tariffs last year were equivalent to an average tax increase of $1,000 for US households. This year, the figure would be $1,300.

According to the Financial Times, Trump now wants to reduce some tariffs on steel and aluminum products. Last year, Trump imposed tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports. This has led, among other things, to rising prices for canned goods and beverages.

Ah, the ice is getting thinner for the criminal in chief and his admin.

"nonpartisan think tank"

It only costs households that buy imports, the bulk of which go to the rich. Did they mention that?

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"nonpartisan think tank"

It only costs households that buy imports, the bulk of which go to the rich. Did they mention that?

If they did, they would have been wrong to

From Gemini AI

"Approximately 51% of goods imported into the United States are intermediate goods—parts, components, and materials used to produce final goods. Other estimates suggest that when including raw materials, nearly all U.S. imports function as inputs for American production. Key intermediate imports include chemicals, electrical equipment, plastics, and semiconductors."

And here's a list of what the US imports by categories.

United States Imports By Category	Value	Year
Total	$3356.81B	2024
Machinery, nuclear reactors, boilers	$531.15B	2024
Electrical, electronic equipment	$485.88B	2024
Vehicles other than railway, tramway	$391.46B	2024
Mineral fuels, oils, distillation products	$251.12B	2024
Pharmaceutical products	$212.67B	2024
Optical, photo, technical, medical apparatus	$124.83B	2024
Pearls, precious stones, metals, coins	$87.20B	2024
Plastics	$78.23B	2024
Furniture, lighting signs, prefabricated buildings	$72.64B	2024
Organic chemicals	$71.06B	2024
Articles of iron or steel	$52.65B	2024
Articles of apparel, knit or crocheted	$47.37B	2024
Toys, games, sports requisites	$43.41B	2024
Articles of apparel, not knit or crocheted	$36.33B	2024
Rubbers	$36.28B	2024
Aircraft, spacecraft	$35.91B	2024
Iron and steel	$32.99B	2024
Beverages, spirits and vinegar	$32.60B	2024
Footwear, gaiters and the like,	$28.39B	2024
Aluminum	$28.31B	2024
Edible fruits, nuts, peel of citrus fruit, melons	$26.02B	2024
Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal	$24.51B	2024
Miscellaneous chemical products	$24.19B	2024
Essential oils, perfumes, cosmetics, toileteries	$23.21B	2024

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports-by-category

Maybe a few of these might be primarily purchased by the wealthy, but not a liot

3 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

A study published last week by the nonpartisan think tank Tax Foundation found that tariffs last year were equivalent to an average tax increase of $1,000 for US households. This year, the figure would be $1,300.

Raising taxes is the surest and most reliable way to reduce the trade deficit. Every economics freshman knows that the trade balance is calculated with the following formula: GDP - Consumption - Investment = trade balance

GDP is the Gross Domestic Product, or the wealth generated by a country in a given period of time.

Consumption is the total value of goods and resources consumed in the same period of time.

Investment is the total value of goods and resources absorbed by investments in the same period of time.

If a country consumes and invests more goods and resources than it produces, it must necessarily import more than it exports.

The formula can also be rewritten to take taxes (T) into account. To this end, it is best to separate private consumption and investment (Cp and Ip) from government consumption and investment (Cg and Ig).

The formula will therefore be:

GDP - (Cp + Ip + T) - (Cg + Ig -T) = trade balance

Any tax (T) increase, by taking resources away from private individuals and businesses, by reducing the public budget deficit automatically improves the trade balance.

The Trump administration's problem is that, having decided to reduce the trade deficit and unable to reduce government spending (i.e. Cg and Ig), it necessarily had to raise taxes. It could have raised personal or corporate income taxes, but this measure is highly unpopular. Instead, it chose to raise tariffs, passing them off as a measure to improve the economy and the lives of Americans.

And the maneuver was a complete success. Millions of gullible people actually thought the tariffs were meant to bring production back home. The truth is that the prices of imported goods have increased, forcing Americans to consume less.

And even if some production were to be brought back home, the goods produced would cost more than those imported (that's why tariffs exist). And this would also force Americans to consume less.

I've worked for several American multinational companies. None, except one, imports goods bought from foreign suppliers. All but one have factories abroad (China, but also Vietnam and Thailand) that directly produce the majority of the products imported into America.

The only company that doesn't produce in Asia what it imports to the US has very little leverage. The imported goods are produced exclusively in China, and they are all subject to the same tariff. Suppliers don't fear competition and therefore have no reason to lower their prices.

These companies essentially face two choices:

1. Pass on the incremental costs (tariffs or on shoring) to consumers.

2. Absorb the incremental costs, generating lower profits and paying lower taxes, thus increasing the public deficit and worsening the trade balance.

Not surprisingly, they chose to pass on approximately 80% of the incremental costs to consumers, according to the estimate published by the BBC.

Last but not least, it is worth noticing that U.S. foreign trade (total imports and exports of goods and services) accounts for approximately 25% to 27% of the nation's GDP, based on data through late 2025. The U.S. economy is less trade-dependent than the global average and this has somehow reduced the impact of the tariffs on inflation.

If Australia (foreign trade as a percentage of GDP was approximately 47.3% in 2024) or Canada (foreign trade in goods and services represents approximately 65% to 67% of its GDP as of late 2024) or Mexico (foreign trade represents over 70% of its GDP) adopted a similar policy, the impact (on inflation, exports, employment and GDP) would have been much higher.

Europe is a special case. While foreign trade represents 96% of the European GDP, most of it is due to intra-European trade and 60% of it to trade within the European Union. With regards to the European Union the extra-EU trade (non-EU countries) specifically was 22.4% of the GDP in 2023, a notch lower than the one recorded by the U.S.

14 hours ago, impulse said:

Simples. Buy less imported crap. Make more in the USA, even if the quality costs more. Put more 'Muricans to work in manufacturing.

Do you really think it's a good idea to import almost a $Trillion more than you export every year? How long before your piggy bank breaks?

Fair point. Unfortunately, it really does not apply to the USA model. US consumers want cheap priced consumer goods. That's why so many items are imported from low labor cost regions. The US does not have the labor supply to produce the consumer goods, nor does it have the technological set up to manufacture the goods.

The USA is running a surplus on its high value exports with many countries, like Canada not the other way around. The USA has chosen to bully and threaten two of its largest trading partners of Mexico and Canada. The result is now being seen. Canada is turning away from the USA and it won't be coming back. The damage is done and will only get worse. The 6 GOP reps who voted against tariffs are just a small indication of the turning tide against the ill conceived Navarro tariffs.

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Fair point. Unfortunately, it really does not apply to the USA model. US consumers want cheap priced consumer goods. That's why so many items are imported from low labor cost regions. The US does not have the labor supply to produce the consumer goods, nor does it have the technological set up to manufacture the goods.

The USA is running a surplus on its high value exports with many countries, like Canada not the other way around. The USA has chosen to bully and threaten two of its largest trading partners of Mexico and Canada. The result is now being seen. Canada is turning away from the USA and it won't be coming back. The damage is done and will only get worse. The 6 GOP reps who voted against tariffs are just a small indication of the turning tide against the ill conceived Navarro tariffs.

What countries have consumers that do not want low priced goods?

The labor force participation rate in the US is ~62.5%, and by most estimates, that will drop with AI.

22 hours ago, cliveshep said:

According to the BBC's online news site it's the American people who are paying for Trump's foray into international relations, with price increases due to tariffs being born pretty much exclusively by his own citizens. Countries exporting to the US remain relatively unaffected by his tariffs and can laugh them off.

Any 5yr old could have predicted this but clearly the orange moron's intellect is so stunted by ego that he failed to see the inevitable outcome. I'm now waiting expectantly for the equally inevitable push-back by the US electorate who were not feeling happy about the rising prices even before they foolishly allowed Trump back into office. Frankly I'm amazed that in a country so obsessed with guns that almost anyone can get hold of one that no amateur marksman failed to set things right on Capitol Hill thus far.

Believe the tariffs by Trump (blatantly illegal as that is assigned to the Congress) is to break the US away from all except the bad guys IMHO and he fell right into the BRICS program. I am unsure how many years it will take for anyone to trust the US again. IMHO he is a traitor to the US Constitution and the citizens (except the ultra rich) of the US. I am sure those that still support him will slam my comments but the facts speak for themselves again, IMHO based on a fairly educated English American person.