Liberal Forum

Just a FYI for the LWNJ screechers. 



The Department of Commerce released the latest edition of the personal consumption expenditure price index on Friday. It showed that inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s two percent target but not because of tariffs. For the second month in a row, the prices of durable goods—those most likely to be influenced by tariffs—fell.

 Importantly, this decline is not coming from a lack of demand for durable goods. Things are not falling in price because people aren’t buying them. Real consumer spending—that is, after adjusting for inflation—on durable goods rose by 0.9 percent. People are buying more durable goods at cheaper prices.

 This is absolutely devastating to the idea that tariffs are a tax on consumers. Even more devastating to that claim, however, is the evidence from a tariff tracker of prices. The tariff tracker, which is run out of the Pricing Lab at Harvard Business School, shows that since Liberation Day when tariffs were announced, the prices of imported goods in tariff-affected categories are up by less (just 1.13 percent) than domestically produced goods in unaffected categories (up by 1.25 percent). In other words, the stuff directly subject to tariffs has risen by less than the prices of stuff not even indirectly subject to tariffs. If we annualize the gains, tariffed imports are up 2.41 percent and non-tariff affected domestic goods are up 2.76 percent.

 But wait. There’s more. Or less, really. The prices of domestically produced goods in categories affected by tariffs—that is, U.S. made goods competing with imports—are down 0.67 percent since Liberation Day. That works out to an annualized decline of 1.42 percent.

 If this sort of thing keeps happening, we would not be surprised to see Harvard just shut down the tracker. It’s too embarrassing for the tariff-hating establishment.
 

*Beekeeper » 27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am

Just a FYI for the LWNJ screechers. 

The Department of Commerce released the latest edition of the personal consumption expenditure price index on Friday. It showed that inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s two percent target but not because of tariffs. For the second month in a row, the prices of durable goods—those most likely to be influenced by tariffs—fell.

 Importantly, this decline is not coming from a lack of demand for durable goods. Things are not falling in price because people aren’t buying them. Real consumer spending—that is, after adjusting for inflation—on durable goods rose by 0.9 percent. People are buying more durable goods at cheaper prices.

 This is absolutely devastating to the idea that tariffs are a tax on consumers. Even more devastating to that claim, however, is the evidence from a tariff tracker of prices. The tariff tracker, which is run out of the Pricing Lab at Harvard Business School, shows that since Liberation Day when tariffs were announced, the prices of imported goods in tariff-affected categories are up by less (just 1.13 percent) than domestically produced goods in unaffected categories (up by 1.25 percent). In other words, the stuff directly subject to tariffs has risen by less than the prices of stuff not even indirectly subject to tariffs. If we annualize the gains, tariffed imports are up 2.41 percent and non-tariff affected domestic goods are up 2.76 percent.

 But wait. There’s more. Or less, really. The prices of domestically produced goods in categories affected by tariffs—that is, U.S. made goods competing with imports—are down 0.67 percent since Liberation Day. That works out to an annualized decline of 1.42 percent.

 If this sort of thing keeps happening, we would not be surprised to see Harvard just shut down the tracker. It’s too embarrassing for the tariff-hating establishment.

huh....
 

ROG62 » 27 Sep 2025, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 7:40 am

huh....

Prices on goods MOST EFFECTED by tariffs DROPPED!!

Which blows the LWNJs screeching about how they would cause massive inflation.

Sucks they know nothing.

Those same people are currently being doxxed and flushed from the system...

they've even been more than willing to flush themselves


 

*Beekeeper » 27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am

Just a FYI for the LWNJ screechers.

The claim that recent economic data proves tariffs are not a consumer tax is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of the facts. While the latest Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) report and data from the Harvard Pricing Lab's tariff tracker do reflect some of the trends mentioned in the text, the analysis in the source text is flawed and lacks crucial context. 
Here is a breakdown of the claims and the verifiable context:  
The text claims that falling durable goods prices, alongside a rise in spending, show tariffs are not the cause of inflation. 
The PCE index for August 2025 did show some mixed trends for goods prices. While some categories like recreational goods and vehicles saw price decreases, others like "other long-lasting manufactured goods" saw price increases.
Data from KPMG corroborates that durable goods prices fell overall for the month of August, but notes that this was heavily influenced by discounts on items like computers and appliances. It also highlights significant price increases in other durable goods categories like jewelry, medical equipment, and vehicles.
The article's argument is misleading because it ignores a key factor: the long and variable lag time for tariffs to fully affect retail prices. Experts from KPMG and Wells Fargo note that the full effects of tariffs can take 6–18 months to be realized by consumers, as costs are initially absorbed by companies. 
The Harvard tariff tracker
What the article says:
The text alleges that a Harvard Pricing Lab "tariff tracker" shows imported goods subject to tariffs have increased in price less than domestically produced goods that are not subject to tariffs. 
What the actual tracker and other analyses reveal:
A tariff tracker operated by the Harvard Business School's Digital Data Design Institute does exist, but its findings contradict the article's conclusions.
A June 2025 update from the tracker reveals that retailers have absorbed some of the tariff costs to remain competitive, but this has primarily impacted companies' profit margins, not eliminated the price effect. It states that "so far, the tariffs' incidence has fallen in large part on US firms," suggesting the final consumer impact is still unfolding.
A May 2025 study from the Federal Reserve, referencing Harvard data, found that 2025 tariffs had already contributed to an increase in core goods prices and overall core PCE prices, refuting the claim that tariffs have had a negligible effect. 
The claim that tariffs are not a consumer tax 
What the article says:
The author's premise is that since import prices have not risen dramatically and domestic competing goods have even fallen, tariffs are not functioning as a tax on consumers. 
The mainstream economic consensus:
Economists broadly agree that tariffs are a form of consumption tax paid by domestic consumers. The cost is paid to the government by the importer, who then typically passes at least a portion of it along to consumers.
Several sources, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), explicitly describe tariffs as a regressive consumption tax that disproportionately affects lower-income households.
The observed price drops in some domestic competing goods mentioned in the text are a short-term market reaction, not a long-term economic outcome. As the tariff costs ripple through the supply chain, domestic firms may also face higher input costs, leading to broader price increases. 
Context and reliability of the source text
Tone and framing:
The article uses politically charged and loaded terms like "Liberation Day," "moonbats," and "tariff-hating establishment". This highly biased language signals that the author is promoting a specific political viewpoint rather than providing an objective economic analysis. 

 
 

*Beekeeper » 27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 7:09 am

Just a FYI for the LWNJ screechers. 

The Department of Commerce released the latest edition of the personal consumption expenditure price index on Friday. It showed that inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s two percent target but not because of tariffs. For the second month in a row, the prices of durable goods—those most likely to be influenced by tariffs—fell.

 Importantly, this decline is not coming from a lack of demand for durable goods. Things are not falling in price because people aren’t buying them. Real consumer spending—that is, after adjusting for inflation—on durable goods rose by 0.9 percent. People are buying more durable goods at cheaper prices.

 This is absolutely devastating to the idea that tariffs are a tax on consumers.

Who are tariffs a  tax on, Sparky?           
 

LMAO.. KneesBleeper:

The article uses politically charged and loaded terms like "Liberation Day," "moonbats," and "tariff-hating establishment". This highly biased language signals that the author is promoting a specific political viewpoint rather than providing an objective economic analysis.

ROG62 » 27 Sep 2025, 7:40 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2025, 7:40 am

huh....

Yes, huh.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

Tariffs are a tax on consumers. Anyone who does not understand this has CLEARLY never read Madison in the Federalist Papers and CLEARLY does not understand the Constitution OR the original tax scheme that funded the US government. Indeed, anyone who does not understand that tariffs are a tax on consumers simply does not know his *** from a hole in the ground. 
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 12:28 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:28 am

Yes, huh.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

Tariffs are a tax on consumers. Anyone who does not understand this has CLEARLY never read Madison in the Federalist Papers and CLEARLY does not understand the Constitution OR the original tax scheme that funded the US government. Indeed, anyone who does not understand that tariffs are a tax on consumers simply does not know his *** from a hole in the ground.

And never learned how the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act under Hoover prolonged the Great Depression.

Tariffs are wrecking my small town chunk of the global enterprise. It's cheaper for Americans to buy skids made in Canada in the current trade war ballroom blitz. I am sure there are tricks for country of origin for the components on them.. We can't compete giving the government 50% on a motor made in Brazil.  Canada can buy them cheaper than us by a lot.  It all adds up.

MAGA can only connect to one dot.  All others are useless.

If we are going to make stuff here again we better restore our casting industry.  Fast..

 
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 12:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:25 am

Who are tariffs a  tax on, Sparky?         

Not a "who" but on IMPORTED GOODS coming into this country. What happens after that is up to whoever imported them. If they add them to the price, then you pay that ONLY if you choose to purchase. IF they absorb them, the IMPORTER oays them.

The bottom line is, tariffs haven't caused inflation as the pundits claimed.

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am

Not a "who" but on IMPORTED GOODS coming into this country.

How do IMPORTED GOODS pay taxes? Do they use their allowance, or do they mow lawns - how do the IMPORTED GOODS come up with the money?

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am

What happens after that is up to whoever imported them.

So the IMPORTER pays the tax? Just like I have always maintained? You're finally ready to admit that - but not to say that you were wrong?

Huh. Must be a day of the week ending in "day."

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am

If they add them to the price, then you pay that ONLY if you choose to purchase. IF they absorb them, the IMPORTER oays them.

So, if the importer is santy claws, I don't have to pay the tax?

Wow. Just wow.

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 7:16 am

The bottom line is, tariffs haven't caused inflation as the pundits claimed.

No, that's the propaganda line. The BOTTOM line is that tariffs are a tax on consumption, which we voted to pay on appropriate, targeted items in order to bring jobs home for the next generation.

And instead, we are seeing tariffs applied to things like coffee, which are irreplaceable consumer items that have driven up the price of coffee considerably. We cannot grow more coffee here. A new tax on coffee has not on-shored one single job.

Look, you have every right to ****-talk YOURSELF and convince YOURSELF that isn't a finger in your ***. But when you start lying to me about the cost of the goods that I purchase, your "source" starts looking as asinine as you do.

Tariffs are a consumption tax, you fruit. Read Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers explaining how tariffs work. All you are doing with this **** thread is displayingyour abysmal ignorance and the life of no literature, no study, that you are leading.
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 12:28 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 12:28 am

Yes, huh.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

Tariffs are a tax on consumers. Anyone who does not understand this has CLEARLY never read Madison in the Federalist Papers and CLEARLY does not understand the Constitution OR the original tax scheme that funded the US government. Indeed, anyone who does not understand that tariffs are a tax on consumers simply does not know his *** from a hole in the ground.

only if they're passed on...which doesn't appear to be the case...
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 9:06 am

How do IMPORTED GOODS pay taxes? Do they use their allowance, or do they mow lawns - how do the IMPORTED GOODS come up with the money?

So the IMPORTER pays the tax? Just like I have always maintained? You're finally ready to admit that - but not to say that you were wrong?

Huh. Must be a day of the week ending in "day."

So, if the importer is santy claws, I don't have to pay the tax?

Wow. Just wow.

No, that's the propaganda line. The BOTTOM line is that tariffs are a tax on consumption, which we voted to pay on appropriate, targeted items in order to bring jobs home for the next generation.

And instead, we are seeing tariffs applied to things like coffee, which are irreplaceable consumer items that have driven up the price of coffee considerably. We cannot grow more coffee here. A new tax on coffee has not on-shored one single job.

Look, you have every right to ****-talk YOURSELF and convince YOURSELF that isn't a finger in your ***. But when you start lying to me about the cost of the goods that I purchase, your "source" starts looking as asinine as you do.

Tariffs are a consumption tax, you fruit. Read Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers explaining how tariffs work. All you are doing with this **** thread is displayingyour abysmal ignorance and the life of no literature, no study, that you are leading.

Got any MORE insults you want to toss out there because your insults don't meet any standards of decency a person wanting respect could offer that would be worthy of a response.

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 9:06 am

How do IMPORTED GOODS pay taxes? Do they use their allowance, or do they mow lawns - how do the IMPORTED GOODS come up with the money?

So the IMPORTER pays the tax? Just like I have always maintained? You're finally ready to admit that - but not to say that you were wrong?

Huh. Must be a day of the week ending in "day."

So, if the importer is santy claws, I don't have to pay the tax?

Wow. Just wow.

No, that's the propaganda line. The BOTTOM line is that tariffs are a tax on consumption, which we voted to pay on appropriate, targeted items in order to bring jobs home for the next generation.

And instead, we are seeing tariffs applied to things like coffee, which are irreplaceable consumer items that have driven up the price of coffee considerably. We cannot grow more coffee here. A new tax on coffee has not on-shored one single job.

Look, you have every right to ****-talk YOURSELF and convince YOURSELF that isn't a finger in your ***. But when you start lying to me about the cost of the goods that I purchase, your "source" starts looking as asinine as you do.

Tariffs are a consumption tax, you fruit. Read Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers explaining how tariffs work. All you are doing with this **** thread is displayingyour abysmal ignorance and the life of no literature, no study, that you are leading.

Besides, this requires NO RESPONSE since the CLAIM was that Tariffs HAD NOT CAUSED ANY INFLATION and that prices were actually DOWN on many core items used to measure inflation. When you can address that, then MAYBE, if you are respectful and decent, you MIGHT get a response.

 
 

ROG62 » 28 Sep 2025, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 9:38 am

only if they're passed on...which doesn't appear to be the case...

What a silly statement. My coffee is more expensive on a whim, and it has NOTHING TO DO with the recent tariffs on over a third of America's coffee supply. 

Tell me, did you ask yourself, "What can I say that is stupid," or did you askyourself, "What has my girl-brain been propagandized to believe"?
 
 

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 1:39 pm

Got any MORE insults you want to toss out there because your insults don't meet any standards of decency a person wanting respect could offer that would be worthy of a response.

Yes yes, that solid refutation of your school girl narrative fed by stupidly consumed propaganda was "insulting."

I cannot imagine what I might say to insult a fellow as stupidas you are. 

 
 

*Beekeeper » 28 Sep 2025, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 1:40 pm

Besides, this requires NO RESPONSE since the CLAIM was that Tariffs HAD NOT CAUSED ANY INFLATION and that prices were actually DOWN on many core items used to measure inflation.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Your source is overtly partisan. You are drinking piss water and insisting that it is champagne. IF YOU HAD THE CHOPS, you would go and get the numbers yourself and do your own analysis. But you lack the chops, so you drink the piss water. 

You're stupid - which would not be a terrible thing, if you KNEW that you are stupid. But you don't, which makes your stupidity a personal disaster.
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 5:58 pm

What a silly statement. My coffee is more expensive on a whim, and it has NOTHING TO DO with the recent tariffs on over a third of America's coffee supply. 

Tellme, did you ask yourself, "What can I say that is stupid," or did you askyourself, "What has my girl-brain been propagandized to believe"?

weren't it you that stated he didn't purchase Brazilian coffee, but just the wax kits which aren't subject to any tariffs?
 

ROG62 » 28 Sep 2025, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 6:07 pm

weren't it you that stated he didn't purchase Brazilian coffee, but just the wax kits which aren't subject to any tariffs?

No.

But whether one drinks Brazilian coffee is not relevant. The price on ALL coffee will go up, because Trump's tariffs are interfering with the laws of supply and demand. In the current market, everyone will capitalize. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 28 Sep 2025, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Sep 2025, 6:13 pm

No.

But whether one drinks Brazilian coffee is not relevant. The price on ALL coffee will go up, because Trump's tariffs are interfering with the laws of supply and demand. In the current market, everyone will capitalize.

how are they "interfering"?