I think you mean good that have elastic demand. BTW, that is all that is needed to show that your statement was incorrect. What goods that are getting tariffs have inelastic demand?
Come on man. You know (or I hope you know) perfectly inelastic is 0 (which is theoretical and no good has this) and inelastic demand represents the relationship to the price curve. The elasticity within food groups depends on cheaper substitutes. 44% of our imported food comes from the nations we just added tariffs to. Eggs being on that list proves the opposite of whatever point you were trying to make.
Another interesting effect: they will make it cheaper for Americans to purchase fentanyl. They likely cause an appreciation of the dollar. Now, for most products, this gets eaten up in increased prices. But, for fentanyl, which doesn't pay the tariffs for obvious reasons, it will make the product comparatively cheaper. So we are fighting fentanyl use by making it cheaper.
Economics is a social science not a "hard" science like physics. It uses scientific approaches and methods to study a field that involves human behavior and interactions. An opinion piece from the WSJ board on economics reflects a high degree of professional acumen.
Sorry that is basic economics. Tariffs cause currency appreciation. Illegal businesses don't pay tariffs. Imported illegal products become comparatively cheaper due to the appreciation.
I'm not sure that is always the case to be fair. Sometimes they are pushing agendas for the oligarchy. And I like the WSJ. But Wall Street is who it is for, first and foremost.
you're not wrong, but it is an "all else =" arg. & Trump at least thinks he can attack supply in other ways. Of course, higher prices will also be costly to society.
It's an opinion piece based on facts and history from a conservative publication that supports free market economics. Context matters, bro.
True. But China is already saying that one response will be to pull out of the cooperation agreement on fentanyl precursors. Less important than it was 5 years ago (the cartels now make their own for some of this stuff), but certainly won't help lower supply.
IMO, attacking drugs from the supply side almost always leads to worse problems. The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases. Cowan put it this way: "the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs." % of alc consumption that was spirits vs. beer & wine
