pull down to refresh

For months, many, most, if not all economists have been predicting a re-inflation due to the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. They are not small increases but dramatic increases that shattered a 70-year postwar run of low tariffs. Every bit of economic theory would suggest that the new taxes paid on imports by American businesses and consumers would feed into price increases.
Those price increases keep not happening.
The consumer price index (CPI) and producer price index (PPI) data came out last week. They once again underscored the point. Inflation is not dead but it has hit new lows relative to what we’ve been through for four years. Tariffs seem not to have made any difference at all. …
Economics is excellent at making qualitative predictions. This amounts to observing that X will cause Y provided that Z remains constant. That is true so far as it goes. But Z is never constant. For that reason, economics cannot make quantitative predictions with any degree of reliability.
To be sure, the economists are quantitatively correct. Tariffs raise prices in some area and for some group but it is not entirely predictable precisely who that will be. So far it appears not to be consumers.
There is also a point to make here concerning inflation and its definition. A new tax can raise prices but that is not the same as inflation, which, as Milton Friedman never tired of saying and proving, is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Higher inflation means the depreciation of the currency, not merely an increase in the price of particular goods and services.
I’m not a fan of tariffs but let’s please stay objective about the empirical case: there is no evidence yet that Trump’s tariffs have increased prices. They appear, so far, to be eaten mostly by importers and not passed on or perhaps they are absorbed by exporters themselves who had high enough margins to pay the tariffs in the form of lower prices to make up the difference of higher fees to importers.
We don’t have enough empirical data to explain it all just yet. Still, if we are keeping score here, the economists who predicted impending doom by the end of low tariffs are not on the winning side. So far. And there is a lesson here: maybe economists could use a dose of humility.
Yes, it is an anomaly that there has been no tariff inflation! Someone is paying for the privilege of these tariffs and it seems not to be the consumer, so far, as predicted by current economic theory. I have no speculation on who may be paying the tariffs, but it may be the producers. The author is right about the economists being wrong, it is based in the premises that the mainstream economists use in their calculations. They forgot that humans choose and that choice is totally unpredictable to anyone but themselves. When will we and the main stream economists learn to understand human action?
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Yes, prices are rising less, despite these tariffs, but actual inflation (money printing) is much lower too. Not to mention how dramatically improved the regulatory environment is. Also, we're in an economic slowdown, which is putting deflationary pressure on prices.
They're also wrong about what economic theory has to say about this. Modern mainstream trade theory actually does explain why prices won't rise very much when a large nation imposes tariffs.
reply
Yes, I have noticed that the quantity of money in circulation has declined due to bond maturities and fewer rollovers. This decreases the money supply nicely. I am just not sure why the tariffs haven’t caused problems to the consumers, yet.
reply
When a large country that consumes a large share of global output imposes tariffs two important things happen:
  1. The global price declines significantly from the loss of demand, i.e. tax incidence falls on the foreign producers.
  2. Domestic supply expands, which is possible because large nations have diversified economies.
reply
Yes, I understand those 2 points. One of my confusion points is the effect of individual choice on the prices of the goods. According to Mises, the goods will only sell at a price. Adding tariffs is the same a raising prices, therefore lowering demand in the tariffing country. Also lowering demand worldwide for that product.
The consumers will only pay at their price point, so the producer must eat the incidence of the tax. Yes, is get this. My point is where in this whole chain of reasoning does the individual consumer enter the picture, besides at the point where the consumers reject an increase in the price? Perhaps I am just confused.
reply
The individual consumer does reduce their purchases in the face of higher prices from tariffs. The point is that the tax incidence is higher on the foreign producers, so prices rise much less than the amount of tax.
That’s what we’re seeing. Prices are rising, just less than predicted.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @moptosh 17 Jun
Things go in cycles. We just have to wait for the Quantitative Easing period to help jumpstart the economy.
reply
Don’t think so. QE is more poison for the disease rather than a cure. It just kicks the consequences can down the road a little further. It makes the consequences that much more difficult to take.
reply