Retailers study shows more Trump tariffs could cost consumers $6 billion

[left-of-center2012]

Source: The Hill

President Trump's threat to slap another $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese good could push up prices and cost U.S. consumers $6 billion, according to a new study by the National Retail Federation released Thursday.

The NRF study focuses on tariffs that will hit furniture and travel goods from China, arguing that even the threat of billions more in tariffs are causing retailers to raise prices and seek out other suppliers.

"The threat that these tariffs could be imposed, and even expanded to include all consumer goods imported from China, has already started a scramble among importers to find alternative sources of supply, including in the United States,” Gold said.

"Therefore, even if the administration decides not to impose the tariffs, higher prices are already on the horizon for American families."

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/403370-retailers-study-shows-more-trump-tariffs-could-cost-consumers-6-billion

[elmac]

1. but, but, but he's making ameriKa great again!

[Mosby]

2. I don't support trumps tariffs

But people are being lied to, I'm starting to think this was a strategy to convince liberals and progressives that tariffs are horrible policy.

You know who this mostly hurts? People in other countries who dream about better wages and working conditions.

Our environment, which is being further degraded by the lack of consequences for industrial polluters.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Modern economies like USA, Canada, Mexico & China are so interwoven that

... that a product might have bits and pieces from all four by time final assembly is finished.

Canadian steel is used for parts made in the US put into cars built in Canada and sold in the US.

Similarly,

US steel is used for parts made in Canada put into cars built in the US and sold in Canada.

Tariffs on any one part will disrupt and maybe even interrupt the chain. They can only increase prices and cost jobs everywhere.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. $6 billion seems like a gross underestimate. . . . nt