>>512642567
>you can't use "well a monopoly will rise prices" as an argument against tariff
I didn't make that argument, you illiterate retard. I was explaining the basic economic forces behind prices and why companies can't raise prices indefinitely in a free market. There is an equilibrium.
>Tariffs also aren't a flat tax but extremely progressive
No economist believes this. Imagine a rich and a poor person both buy a phone from China. Or if they fill their car with gas from Canada. Who suffers most from the tariffs in proportion to their income?
>This is cope, america has plenty of low skilled minimum wage workers that would benefit from a modestly paid factory job
Factory jobs are generally worse paid and more repetitive than service jobs. Americans aren't actually yearning to sew sneakers on an assembly line. And most of these factory jobs will mostly be automated in order to be competitive with chinese slave labor.
>Tariffs aren't a tax at all for most people since they are mostly paid by foreigners
Cope.
>US laborforce participation is 62%, that's 80 million unemployed working age americans
This includes students, retirees, retarded people who can't work and so on. The unemployment rate is about 4%. That's considered healthy for an economy.
