2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

In some cases. Absolutely. Others no. Still support them.

Here you go, from a source you trust

10 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Sure but it is perfectly reasonable to break it up and have a specific opinion on each part.

Sure. But I don't see how you can grade Trump's immigration policy without putting them together. I wouldn't say "I like what he's done at the border', I'd say "the border part of his immigration policy has been good, but I do no think he has improved the situation"

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Here you go, from a source you trust

Cool I asked too

Understanding Tariffs and Who Pays ThemTariffs are taxes imposed by the U.S. government on goods imported from other countries, collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the point of entry. Legally, the importer of record—typically a U.S.-based company or customs broker—pays the tariff directly to the government. This revenue goes to the U.S. Treasury and has exceeded $30 billion per month in 2025 under recent policies. However, the economic burden can shift depending on market dynamics and contracts: U.S. importers may pass costs to consumers via higher prices, or foreign exporters may absorb some burden by lowering their pre-tariff prices to stay competitive (e.g., through discounts or renegotiated contracts). Foreign absorption is rarer but occurs when exporters fear losing market share.Your question focuses on examples where other countries (or their exporters) effectively "pay"—i.e., instances where foreign sellers absorb the tariff hit by reducing their prices or sharing costs, rather than the full burden falling on U.S. importers. Below are real-world case studies from U.S. tariff actions, drawn from economic analyses and trade data. These show partial absorption, as full foreign payment is uncommon due to the importer-paid structure.Examples of Foreign Exporters Absorbing U.S. Tariffs

Country/Exporter	Tariff Event	Details of Absorption	Impact
China (Steel and Aluminum Exporters)	2018 Section 232 Tariffs (25% on steel, 10% on aluminum, renewed and raised to 25% in 2025)	Chinese steel producers lowered export prices by 10-15% to U.S. buyers to offset tariffs and maintain volume, per Federal Reserve analysis. This absorbed ~20% of the tariff cost, with U.S. importers covering the rest via higher landed costs. Exporters did this to avoid losing the U.S. market, their largest for steel.	Reduced Chinese steel exports by 20% overall, but price cuts helped sustain some shipments. U.S. steel prices rose 25%, showing partial pass-through to Americans.
European Union (Various Manufacturers, e.g., Germany, France)	2018-2019 Section 301 Tariffs (up to 25% on €200B+ in goods, extended into 2025 reciprocal tariffs at 20%)	EU auto and machinery exporters cut prices by 5-8% on average, absorbing about 15% of tariffs, according to National Bureau of Economic Research studies. Contracts often renegotiated to share costs (e.g., via "tariff clauses" allowing price adjustments).	Helped preserve €50B+ in annual EU exports to U.S., but led to 10% drop in volumes for affected goods. U.S. consumers saw 12% price hikes on EU cars.
South Korea (Steel and Electronics Firms)	2018 Steel Tariffs (25%, quota exemptions traded for price concessions; 2025 reciprocal at 24%)	Korean steel giants like POSCO reduced prices by 12% and agreed to voluntary export restraints, effectively absorbing 25% of the tariff equivalent to keep U.S. market access. Similar for semiconductors, where firms like Samsung shared ~10% of costs via rebates.	Maintained 90% of pre-tariff export levels, but Korean firms' margins fell 8%. U.S. steel prices stabilized somewhat, but overall import costs rose 18%.
Canada (Lumber and Auto Parts Exporters)	2017-2025 Softwood Lumber Duties (20% average) and USMCA-Related Tariffs (up to 35% in 2025)	Canadian lumber producers absorbed 30-40% of duties by cutting prices $50-100 per thousand board feet, per U.S. Department of Agriculture data, to compete with U.S. suppliers. Auto parts firms renegotiated to cover 15% via lower base prices.	Exports dropped 15%, but absorption prevented steeper declines. U.S. homebuilders faced 10% higher costs, contributing to housing inflation.
Mexico (Auto and Machinery Exporters)	2018-2025 USMCA Tariffs (25% on non-compliant goods, paused then at 25% in 2025)	Mexican auto firms (e.g., Volkswagen plants) lowered prices by 7-10% on parts, absorbing ~20% of tariffs through supply chain shifts and discounts, as reported in J.P. Morgan trade analyses. This was to avoid U.S. buyers switching to domestic sources.	Sustained $300B+ in annual exports, but Mexican GDP growth slowed 0.5%. U.S. vehicle prices rose 5%, with partial burden on consumers.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Sure. But I don't see how you can grade Trump's immigration policy without putting them together. I wouldn't say "I like what he's done at the border', I'd say "the border part of his immigration policy has been good, but I do no think he has improved the situation"

My assertion was that we should be able to suggest that part of the immigration policy has been good and also point out that part has been bad. I never graded the overall Immigration Policy and I think it would be more useful to break it up into the two distinct parts which was my point.

3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Cool I asked too

Exactly, foreign countries do NOT pay tariffs. If a foreign producer lowers the price they have NOT paid a tariff, i.e. no revenue comes into the US govt.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Exactly, foreign countries do NOT pay tariffs. If a foreign producer lowers the price they have NOT paid a tariff, i.e. no revenue comes into the US govt.

You’re right, foreign countries don’t directly pay tariffs U.S. importers are the ones who pay Customs, and that cash goes straight to the government. But when you say foreign producers lowering prices means they’re not "paying” anything, that’s too narrow.When Chinese companies cut prices to stay competitive they are taking a hit on their profits to keep sales up and keep their market share as I bolded. That's money out of their pockets even if it's not a direct tariff payment. We still get the full tariff revenue, but acting like they never feel the cost misses how they have to eat pat of it.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Exactly, foreign countries do NOT pay tariffs. If a foreign producer lowers the price they have NOT paid a tariff, i.e. no revenue comes into the US govt.

We already did this bro. The POTUS lies every day about the nature of tariffs so they have to stick to a roundabout way of naming it that makes it un-false. Problem is you really can't discuss the ocean without first acknowledging its made of f'ing water.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You’re right, foreign countries don’t directly pay tariffs—U.S. importers are the ones who pay Customs, and that cash goes straight to the government. But when you say foreign producers lowering prices means they’re not "paying” anything, that’s too narrow.When Chinese companies cut prices to stay competitive they are taking a hit on their profits to keep sales up and keep their market share as I bolded. That's money out of their pockets even if it's not a direct tariff payment. We still get the full tariff revenue, but acting like they never feel the cost misses how they have to eat pat of it.

Donald Trump, every single day, claims that "we are making all of this money from tariffs, all of this money coming INTO our country". That is a lie, he lies every day about the nature of it and even exaggerates the amount UPWARDS because he has framed it as something other countries pay.

Once you get past that, you can go anywhere you want, even go ahead and argue that Trump's lies are worth it because that's how badly we needed tariffs to protect US companies and workers. But you do have to start with acknowledging he lies every day and foreign countries don't pay a dime.

13 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You’re right, foreign countries don’t directly pay tariffs U.S. importers are the ones who pay Customs, and that cash goes straight to the government. But when you say foreign producers lowering prices means they’re not "paying” anything, that’s too narrow.When Chinese companies cut prices to stay competitive they are taking a hit on their profits to keep sales up and keep their market share as I bolded. That's money out of their pockets even if it's not a direct tariff payment. We still get the full tariff revenue, but acting like they never feel the cost misses how they have to eat pat of it.

I never said they weren't paying "anything". I said they weren't paying tariffs.

If we move to the indirect model you are preaching then we need to look at what happens in reality and not theory. Grok says "Foreign absorption is rarer", i.e. there are likely to be some examples of foreign producers lowering their costs but they will be rare. To date, it seems US companies have taken the hit to some extent which won't last.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I never said they weren't paying "anything". I said they weren't paying tariffs.

If we move to the indirect model you are preaching then we need to look at what happens in reality and not theory. Grok says "Foreign absorption is rarer", i.e. there are likely to be some examples of foreign producers lowering their costs but they will be rare. To date, it seems US companies have taken the hit to some extent which won't last.

Sounds like a miscommunication after reading "If a foreign producer lowers the price they have NOT paid a tariff, i.e. no revenue comes into the US govt."

I support them but yeah they may not work and GOP will pay the price if not. We'll see. I do think companies in other countries are taking a hit as well. I used an example of a Scandinavian company who makes expensive cutting tools losing business by adding a tariff fee in the final checkout. I bought American. Doubt I'm the only one.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Sounds like a miscommunication after reading "If a foreign producer lowers the price they have NOT paid a tariff, i.e. no revenue comes into the US govt."

I support them but yeah they may not work and GOP will pay the price if not. We'll see

Not all. If a foreign producer lowers prices they have NOT paid a tariff. That is 100% true and it is important given the bullsheet Trump throws out there.

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Not all. If a foreign producer lowers prices they have NOT paid a tariff. That is 100% true and it is important given the bullsheet Trump throws out there.

This is the link he used yesterday to argue that foreign exporters will lower costs to absorb a significant portion of the tariff burden.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-pays-tariffs/

Let's see if you spot the problem

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This is the link he used yesterday to argue that foreign exporters will lower costs to absorb a significant portion of the tariff burden.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-pays-tariffs/

Let's see if you spot the problem

Cute how you throw in significant.

The Tax Foundation link shows tariffs aren't always passed to consumers. Foreign exporters like steel suppliers often lower prices to absorb part of the tariff up to 50% in some cases to stay competitive. This happens when they depend on the US market sharing the burden with importers and buyers. The fact it goes on to say most prove it is fully passed on doesn't matter. As I said yesterday it supports what I said at the start and then goes into your side later AFTER proving my point. It happens.

8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This is the link he used yesterday to argue that foreign exporters will lower costs to absorb a significant portion of the tariff burden.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-pays-tariffs/

Let's see if you spot the problem

Yeah, the thread running thru the entire article was that consumers ended up paying higher prices even though it took some months to kick in post start of the tariffs.

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Serious question. Other than the border what good things has he done?

The answer is "own the libs". It's all they care about.

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The answer is "own the libs". It's all they care about.

Yes, this is most definitely a culture war for MAGA

23 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

It was the principle of it. They make good cutting tools in that area of the world but that particular company added on the export fees to the splitting axe while another manufacturer I buy puukko knives from hasn't. So I bought American and honestly it worked fine the other day.

Using that example if the price of knives does go up I'm buying from an American one like ESEE.

21 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

48 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Cute how you throw in significant.

The Tax Foundation link shows tariffs aren't always passed to consumers. Foreign exporters like steel suppliers often lower prices to absorb part of the tariff up to 50% in some cases to stay competitive. This happens when they depend on the US market sharing the burden with importers and buyers. The fact it goes on to say most prove it is fully passed on doesn't matter. As I said yesterday it supports what I said at the start and then goes into your side later AFTER proving my point. It happens.

48 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, the thread running thru the entire article was that consumers ended up paying higher prices even though it took some months to kick in post start of the tariffs.

Cute how you tried to claim up to 90% yesterday 🤣

It starts by saying that historically some of the burden has fallen on exporters via price drops. But then specifically goes on to say that Trump's tariffs don't follow that trend with multiple examples. Pretty much all the burden has fallen on importers and like Doc said the consumer over time. So in the case of these Tariffs all of the burden, primarily and secondarily, is falling on American importers and consumers.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It starts by saying that historically some of the burden has fallen on exporters via price drops. But then specifically goes on to say that Trump's tariffs don't follow that trend with multiple examples. Pretty much all the burden has fallen on importers and like Doc said the consumer over time. So in the case of these Tariffs all of the burden, primarily and secondarily, is falling on American importers and consumers.

Does it happen historically? Yes. My point is proven correct.

I disagree with the second half, but the first still stands regardless of what they try to argue in the rest of it. If they want to argue that it hasn't happened at all they would be flat out wrong. Trends aren't absolute.

I also mentioned Goldman saying that exporters absorbed some of that and also said that will decrease.

Yes companies will be reducing that, but it has happened and some will continue to do so. Once again my point was correct. If they don't want to lose market share they will reduce their prices or risk consumers going with other options.

3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Does it happen historically? Yes. My point is proven correct.

I disagree with the second half, but the first still stands regardless of what they try to argue in the rest of it. If they want to argue that it hasn't happened at all they would be flat out wrong. Trends aren't absolute.

I also mentioned Goldman saying that exporters absorbed some of that and also said that will decrease.

Yes companies will be reducing that, but it has happened and some will continue to do so. Once again my point was correct.

It being historically the case is pretty much irrelevant if it's not happening currently. It's like arguing the Eagles have a good run this year game because historically that's the case.

You said this about Goldman yesterday. Did you find a link yet? I'd be curious to see what percentage they see companies absorbing and why it seems counter to every other major financial group is saying about them. Give me data.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

It being historically the case is pretty much irrelevant if it's not happening currently. It's like arguing the Eagles have a good run this year game because historically that's the case.

You said this about Goldman yesterday. Did you find a link yet? I'd be curious to see what percentage they see companies absorbing and why it seems counter to every other major financial group is saying about them. Give me data.

Yeah, I have a link. The percentage doesn't matter. Is it happening? Yes. I'm not getting into a game that you will probably want to play next of well it's less than the historic numbers. Irrelevant.

Can consumers eventually pay more for imported goods with tariffs? Yeah, that's part of the point. Do companies want to keep the market share and absorb it? Yes.

"Starting in the fall, as many of the higher tariffs threatened by Trump take effect, the consumer share of the tariff cost is expected to rise to 67%, the Goldman analysts said, while the share for U.S. businesses will fall to 8%. The remaining 25% will be absorbed by foreign exporters."

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2025/08/11/US-Will-Pay-75-Tariff-Costs-Goldman-Sachs