I know that there’s lots of auto parts produced there, but what else?
Food. Say goodbye to winter fruits and vegetables, or at least expect to pay a fortune for them. It’ll be canned veggies again, just like in the 60’s and 70’s.
This can’t be taken in isolation. The question is where protectionism leads, what would be the effect of a global trade war?
Your margarita is about to be priced out of existence.
Facts given here.
All that can be said in GQ is Mexico is a major trade partner. Some goods would become more expensive. Some manufacturing would shift. Some retaliatory tariffs would be placed. Nobody has any idea what exact changes would happen.
Here’s one link about it:
Such a broad tariff though…
Not that I advocate a tariff, but define “fortune”. There are plenty of countries in South America (Chile, anyone?) with strong agricultural sectors as well as Australia, Africa, etc. Mexico is, of course, the closet, but alternatives exist.
Wouldn’t prices go up as demand for their products increased? I also wonder about the feasibility of importing some products - apples and grapes, sure, but what about more fragile products like lettuce? It can’t be cheap to ensure that all products will be able to withstand the extra shipping needed to export from, for example, Australia. Mexico is a lot cheaper and you can use overland shipping.
I’m trying to remember the last lot of clothing I bought in the US which didn’t have “Hecho En Mexico” on the tag. I can see that getting a lot more expensive if such a tarriff is implemented.
Exporters would need a fleet of dedicated aircraft and pay for pilots and jet fuel to replicate what trucks from Mexico can do with one driver and diesel fuel. Forget about Australia and especially Africa. I’m not sure, but I’d imagine it’d take close to a week to get to LA from Chile by freighter. Add a couple of days if going to the east coast through the Panama Canal. Not too many fruits and veggies will make that trip in good enough shape to be put on grocery store shelves. Meat and fish can be frozen and refrigerated and last a lot longer.
Raising a tariff like this isn’t a magic one-time-only thing. States react. Mexico will seek compensation against America. Raising their tariffs is just one of many options. Things get messy fast.
Other countries get involved. E.g., a Japanese car maker with assembly plants in Mexico for export to the US will lose money. They’ll want Japan to raise tariffs on US goods to Japan to pay back their losses. And on and on.
The US falling out of line with WTO practices will provoke sanctions all over the place.
We no longer live in some sort of magical individual national economy world. Everything is heavily interconnected. Everything is done by international agreement. Doing things one-sided causes a major domino effect of problems.
Remember the last time there was an international customs war?
The US economic recovery is incredibly weak and fragile right now. Just seriously discussing a customs war would cause problems. Getting into one would be disastrous.
It’s probably a negotiating tactic. Trump is being the aggressive businessman who puts the other side on the defensive and gauges their reaction. Threaten to take business elsewhere, that sort of thing. Start with an impossible demand, then willow it down.
Overland shipping is generally more expensive for bulk products than seaborne shipping. That is not to say that having to import more things from Brazil, Chile, Australia or wherever would not be more expensive.
Trump can talk about 20% tariffs all day, but Congress won’t institute them, so the question is moot.
Eh. They’ll probably give him a border adjustment tax, which is close enough (and doesn’t have the same potential to create a trade war).
Since this is a complex question with no simple answer, let’s move this to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
One can only hope they don’t fall in line behind him! So far, those two gutless sycophants Ryan and McConnell are right in line behind him. And I do mean behind.
He is declaring trade war on Mexico… and for what? Why, exactly? The purpose of the tax is to pay for this ridiculous wall… the whole circular enterprise is utter destructive lunacy.
He imagines that hoards of criminals are swarming over the borders and raping, pillaging, selling drugs, AND taking jobs from American citizens. :smack: Even if this were true, a physical wall is not the way to stop it. The man is insane.
I heard a guy on NPR yesterday morning (sorry, don’t have a cite, but it was on Morning Edition)-- the ex-Mayor of Yuma, Arizona, and he said there were not only illegal Mexicans coming over all along the border, but Iranians and Afghanis, too. “We’ve got to stop them,” he said. Jesus God in heaven. :rolleyes: Then another ex-Mayor (of El Paso, I think) came on and said the wall is utterly ridiculous and completely impractical, too. Border towns on both sides THRIVE on people going back and forth to work and home every day–both ways. A wall would destroy an economic symbiosis that has been in place since before national borders even existed.
Maybe Ryan, et al. are giving Trump free rein (not to mention free reign) right now, because they’re gathering evidence for his impeachment hearing. Yeah, that’s the ticket. When they find the keys to the strawberry locker hidden under Trump’s pillow, they’ve got him!
As given in the figures above, 20% on ca. $300bil in imports. The volume of the imports from Mexico would tend be reduced by the tax especially if it lasted as importers substituted other sources, but as starting point $60bil v. $18tril US GDP. So the big picture economic answer is ‘negligible’ from whole US POV.
As other posts suggested though, not necessarily negligible in terms of where it might lead, nor as negligible for Mexico or particular economic interests in the US especially dependent on Mexican imports. And as to substituting other import sources, this is where punitive bilateral tariffs are really limited, even besides retaliatory bilateral tariffs. Limited that is in terms of changing the overall trade picture. The idea here seems to be to bring political pressure on Mexico for a mainly political (albeit ostensibly economically related) purpose. That wouldn’t necessarily fail, though it might also.
A border adjusted cash flow tax on companies is pretty different than a targeted bilateral import tariff, again economically, even if proponents or opponents want to deem them similar for political purposes.
This is one of the things that the current leadership doesn’t seem to understand. He seems to want to have 1-on-1 agreements with other countries (that was one of the stated reasons, though not the only reason, he gave for going against the TPP. It was multi-national.) And trade doesn’t work like that now, assuming it ever did.
That assumes a global trade war actually occurs. If not then we just call it mercantilism. A trade philosophy aren’t shy about employing.