Lawrence: The media is trying (and failing) to cure themselves of 'sane-washing' Trump - The Last Word - MSNBC

[Rhiannon12866]

What The New York Times calls a “disputable policy assumption,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains that that is just the Times “sane-washing” Donald Trump’s tariff lies. Lawrence explains why the media’s “sane-washing” of Donald Trump means that Vice President Harris won’t just be debating Trump in the first presidential debate, she will also be debating the news media reviewers of the debate. - Aired on 09/09/2024.

[MagaSmash]

1. Q. Mr. trump. Explain to the audience what a Tariff is.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Oh, please, let that be the first question!!!

[ALBliberal]

3. Lawrence

It has been a lonely pursuit!

(Explaining tariffs)

Man is a g@@damned national treasure!!!

[Rhiannon12866]

4. He truly is, his experience shows and he tells us the truth on essential issues on his show every night

[aggiesal]

5. I have never heard anyone explain what function exactly does a tariff perform ...

In fact, they all seem to get it wrong, even Lawrence O'Donnell got it wrong.

A tariff is design for the country charging a tariff to even the playing field for their domestic product.

Example
Foreign Country X manufactures a pair of shoes for $5, imports them into the US & charges $20 for that pair of shoes.
Another company in the US manufactures a comparable if not better, pair of shoes for $15 and charges $30 for that pair of shoes.
Obviously the consumer will most likely by the $20 pair of shoes and soon the US company goes out of business.

Now the US decides to charge a $10 tariff for each pair of shoes imported into the US.
This increases Foreign Country X pair of shoes from $5 to $15 matching the US pair. So now both companies are charging $30 for their shoes.
At this point the fun begins, because the consumer has to decide which of the 2 pairs of shoes have better quality & style.

If the US consumer still buys the Foreign Country X shoes, then yes the US consumers are paying for the increase.

But if the US consumer buys the better quality US made shoes, the Foreign Country X company either goes out of business or lowers the price to the consumers & makes less profit per pair.
Also, by buying the US pair, the US company continues to employ the US workers and the money stays in the US.

Let me know if you understand, agree or disagree.and why.

[DFW]

6. As I understand O'Donnell's main argument

He is trying to point out who pays the tariff. When you say, “the US decides to charge a $10 tariff,” the question must also be answered: paid by whom? Who gets the bill for the $10? Yes, it gets passed on to the end consumer, but who actually paid it? Who got charged originally? Did that $10 come out of the pocket of the foreign exporter, collected from them at the port of entry? Or did it come out of the pocket of the American importer?

It appears to me that this was the fundamental difference. Since the import tariffs are paid by entities in the importing/consumer country, and not by the exporting/selling country, O’Donnell’s main point is correct, and Trump’s is not.

[aggiesal]

7. I always assumed that it was the exporting company that made the shoes ...

Why would the importer pay for the tariff, when it's between countries?

It was a good question that made me think.

As for Lawrence and every other host, they all say the consumer ends up paying the higher price to cover the foreign companies tariff bill, which is only the caseiof the US consumer continues to buy those imported goods

But if the US consumer buys the US made product they'll pay the higher price because possibly a better quality product and/or our higher standard of living.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Thanks so much for the explanation!