Talk:3073: Tariffs

This comic and explanation is about present-day politics and Donald Trump, the current President of the US. Additionally, the comic is about a political policy point that has disparate viewpoints which are both backed by extensive study and rarely implemented well. Please don’t feed the trolls, meaning that you don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, revert, block and ignore. If you are not an admin and need assistance in blocking someone, send a message to User:Kynde or User:Theusaf. As with these contentious topics, please do not edit if you believe you have a conflict of interest or might be writing in a biased and slanted manner (in regards to both major American political parties). Be bold, but not reckless. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t attack people, and always assume good faith. Thanks, 42.book.addictTalk to me! 00:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Uh, still no April fools Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The April fools is the president the U.S. Elected. (note: I am Usanian)172.70.214.232 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh no a candidate you don't like got elected :((((((((((((( 172.68.12.180 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I have good news Dextrous Fred (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I felt like using all caps is a good idea for explanations, since the comic itself is all caps Aprilfoolsupdate! (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Please don't. If you did that, then all of the other explanations and transcripts would have to be edited to all-caps, which makes it harder to read. guess who (if you desire conversing | what i have done) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't just about every xkcd comic use all-caps? That would make pretty much the entire wiki unreadable. 172.71.155.35 04:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Plus, there are very few uses of lowercase letters. It just doesn't make sense. Whoa (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with the explanation? It's showing this weird string of letters: expDia thud enzo Isla idiosyncrasies talk 3totheaudienceandtheotherswhoareyouheresoearlyinthedayafterMittenslefttodois sign up for both ofuscan'twaitforthemostparttobeabrightandwarmwelcomeandIhopethatyouwillfindapenthatwillOrbitz pap 162.158.159.8 20:23 7 April 2025 EST

Vandals --Btx40 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting a few Cloudflare messages that the server isn't responding. I'm used to explainxkcd giving straight 503s, etc, but this is the kind of thing (code 522, in at least one case) that you get only when an active pressure (crap-spamming, etc) is being applied. I'm wondering if there's some pushback from the pro-tariff (or at least 'pro-Donald') online community. 172.70.85.32 11:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, just HOPEFULLY, we can prevent the comment section from devolving into insults like https://xkcd.com/1756/: I'm With Her. Thehydraclone (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur, though I want to stress that I think it's very important that we try to make this comic explanation as neutral as possible. Is it possible to not show a bias towards either side of the issue? Randall's comic obviously has a point of view, but perhaps the explanation on this site can be a little bit more neutral. Dogman15 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You stink! 172.70.91.181 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Comic 2566 was supposed to be a joke... --172.68.175.87 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"venmo" needs explaining. Apparently it's some sort of USAian proprietary payment system? And I think Ponytail's company is providing a service (which the USA exports of lot of), rather than selling equipment - services usually not being captured by simple trade figures for goods. And in order to post here I have to identify features of foreign street scenes in order to train a monopolist's proprietary image recognition system. 162.158.216.115 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, didn't read this first, but I just put a link in for that (slightly awkwardly, but best I could - expecting a later editor to better phrase/place it). Hadn't heard of it, myself. Presumably Leftpondians know about it a lot more, perhaps most do, given how much business it gets/facilitates only in the US. Anyway, consider me one of those that learnt something new today! (Not that I can, or would, use it, of course.) 172.70.163.71 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added this comic as an answer to a Politics.SE question. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/60191/does-it-make-sense-to-treat-trade-deficit-as-tariffs/60229#60229 Barmar (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This is unironically the best explanation of Trump's tariffs I've seen --162.158.212.171 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a Facebook friend post almost the exact same analogy the day before this comic was released. So it is an idea that is out there. But since Trump do not care for the people who elected him, it is not his problem that everything gets more expensive in the US --Kynde (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Midwit take from Randall that fundamentally misunderstands that the goal is to bring back manufacturing capability to the USA. Warren Buffett proposed these exact tariff measures 20 years ago and is only now saying they're bad because Orange Man Bad Amirite. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf 172.68.12.75 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I've just read the paper you linked, which suggests issuing tradable / saleable import certificates to create a liquid market incentivizing a trade balance, one which is not country or industry directed at all and has, basically, nothing to do with Trump's "plan." They are not "the exact same" at all, and I'm not surprised that someone using "orange man bad" language is engaging in deception. 172.69.214.221 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Are you even sure you *want* to bring back manufacturing of all kinds to the USA? Do you understand what that entails? Every single sane economist on earth has been telling Trump from the start that this is an astonishingly bad idea, but he refuses to listen. Then again, every single sane climate scientist has been doing the same thing, and nobody listens to them either. All fitting, then.172.70.243.136 06:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with domestic manufacturing? Don't get me wrong, I don't consider (R) good, but the concept of "they're all just stupid" doesn't explain anything in the real world. 162.158.103.81 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Well. It makes as much sense for the USA to manufacture iPhones domestically as it does for you to grow your own wheat and sunflowers and gather rock salt and process all that to bake bread. The world economy works by distributing work and relying on specialization. Doing everything on your own is grossly inefficient and it's simply impossible to keep up your standard of living that way.172.71.172.178 10:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Another response is that if you're determined to prove that your country doesn't need to trade with the rest of the world (at an extreme, what NK is trying to do, though majorly propped up by China despite this), the rest of the world might decide that it doesn't need to trade with you.

The US has been (successfully) pursuading much of the world that it is a vital part of the world economy for a long time, and benefited more from it than cold, hard balance sheets could ever show. (Even in 'not friendly' nations, there has been cultural soft-power arise from the value of american denim jeans or records or even just the idea that there are more ways to do things than their current despotic ruler would openly admit to.) You could always find places to spend black-market dollars in Moscow, Havana or any place in any "Democratic Republic" (that's neither democratic nor strictly a republic) you could mention, and to the overall net benefit of the US. As well as being friendly to friendly countries, it has been insidious to those less than amicable (at a governing level).

There's probably something to be said for not entirely relying upon third party countries (or at least not entirely upon singular third party countries, or entire political blocks/'blocs') that could suddenly put you under pressure regarding vital resources and components. Look at the hoops that Russia had to jump through, dependant upon China (and even NK!) for resources it was suddenly in need of. But the US was already in the position to be trading with any and all parts of the world (that it chose to), the cost was that maybe it couldn't sell quite as much worth in the form of cadillacs to a small group of islands that provided it with a given value of fish, but the value is that they'll keep on preferentially selling fish (that obviously the US can make use of).

Now... Well, such fish that may be caught might go elsewhere, the world markets shuffle about, perhaps China gets more fish (perhaps NK does?) if it has demands for them, or perhaps it no longer seems worthwhile fishing so much from those islands. If there's nothing else for fishermen to do, maybe they'll go elsewhere to find something, but don't expect them to immigrate to the US and fish there, 'internally'. Not with the recent policies on immigration. So, the US probably has fewer fish, China has more soft-power (and probably hard-power, too) and the world adjusts to a state where in trying to win 'trade wars' against the whole world, the US has surrendered most of its trading power to the kind of countries that were previously trying hard to become its equals (and now become its superiors).

If the current guy was really serious about "Gina" being his trading opponent, he'd work specifically against their influence, not actually make it more likely to increase. And that doesn't fit well with trying to split China and Russia again (even if he's making Russia and the US comrades in arms, again, in a separate deal).

Before anyone points at the ungainly notice about bias/slanted opinion, I'm just outlining an interpretation here that shows contradictions in the scheme of the ultimate "re-on-shoring of everything" drive being nothing but good. There's probably a better balance. Possibly not a guaranteed win:win, but at worst a lose-least:lose-least one. But such a Prisoner's Dilemma situation can't happen when one of the prisoners seems to only believe in win:lose results, so that they always aim (however wrongly) only for a maximised return on their side, resulting in an unsatisfactory lose:lose (or even lose:gain, to their own disadvantage) outcome. Also, I'm not 'Merkin myself. I'd rather a stronger US than various other nations getting stronger, actually, and that's why I'm worried that the world may pivot in ways that (openly, at least) the current US Administration don't actually want.

But global trade is hard. "Who would have though it to be so hard..." Who knows where this will lead (especially if it strays out of the purely financial sphere, which of course it is already doing). Simply restoring manufacturing to the US is not the simple panacea that some might suggest. Aluminium (yeah, I know, but that's my spelling) can be made far cheaper in Canada than in the US and that's not going to change within four years (maybe not fourteen, could take more than forty!) and this and all the other supply-ripples won't happen fast enough (especially with far too much stick and practically no carrot) to fulfil the aspirations being espoused. So you absolutely can't take the current plans at face value. I'd be surprised if most of the ones touting them even believe them, and there must actually be more ulterior motives behind the wrecking-ball that's being unleashed, to which they're in more of a position to benefit from. (Time will tell, maybe. Perhaps it'll all work like a charm, but I'd heavily bet against it if I actually had the resources to significantly benefit out of the future failure, and yet couldn't do anything to reverse it.) 172.71.241.110 11:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There should be a "don't feed the trolls" banner at the top of the discussion. 162.158.159.8 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There's already a "Don't be a jerk!" rule noted at the bottom. Could just move it to the top, I suppose. (Or better, just move it to the top only for topics that are likely to lure people into acting like jerks. Good way to tell whether a given strip is going to upset a lot of people...) 172.70.42.96 22:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

made a notice about it up top 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 00:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

TORI! YOU'RE BACK! Caliban (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm from Germany, with the opposite issue. I never understood why having an export surplus should be a good thing. Let's make a bilance. OUT: Cars, machines, chemicals,... IN: Little printed paper snips (or little bytes if paid more modern). Sounds like a bad swap to me. 162.158.112.186 07:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Former Financial Times and World Bank economist Tim Harford's "Undercover Economist" pop-econ books explain this quite well. (I don't think I can do Harford's explanation justice here but I shall try; any mistakes are my own) Germany wants to trade (for example) oil with OPEC, but all it has to trade are (for example) BMWs and OPEC doesn't want enough BMWs relative to how much oil Germany wants. So, Germany sells the extra BMWs to America in return for US dollars (the international currency for oil trading) and uses the US dollars to buy the oil. Economically, a BMW factory is basically a machine that converts steel into petrol via a really roundabout process. 172.70.85.32 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Randall saw the most recent video from StandUpMaths. 141.101.99.161 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I'm not sure if it was actually intended, but it seems that everyone missed the potential second meaning in the last frame. It's possible that Ponytail was referring to lidar diodes as a heat source used to cook the pizza, and Cueball either mistakenly or sardonically responded as if the mentioned diodes was instead suggested as a topping. That might also be a jab at political discussion, which is often full of spirited rebuttals based on misinterpretations of the opposing side's comments. SammyChips (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to lock comment sections? I feel like it would be especially helpful in comics like these. And while Reddit is usually not a good example for anything them locking the comments for contentious content (hehe) is actually a really good idea. 172.68.12.75 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The talk page could be semi-protected (to various degrees: admin-only editing, autoconfirmed-only editing) by an admin (your best bet would be to ask User:Kynde). I would recommend against such drastic moves for the moment, as the vandalism and trolling isn’t that bad (yet). If it does get worse, I’ll make sure to send a message to Kynde. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 17:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, haste never gets anyone anywhere and it'd appear unjustified to do something that severe if it isn't that bad enough. But if it gets to the level of the I'm With Her comment section and nobody has asked for it to be locked, I'll ask Kynde like you asked. In any case, I'll wait. 172.71.223.147 17:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I cannot agree that Reddit (or any site's) locking of comments is a good idea; it's a declaration of failure better dealt with by not having anything there at all except a statement that the topic is outside the scope acceptable by one's site. Even worse though, removing comments that are not abusive, promoting harm, etc, while leaving others that may be either similar or inverse, especially for difficult topics, is UNACCEPTABLE from any forum hoping to host discussion of anything the least bit controversial. Removing non-violating comments is even worse than locking threads, which is also bad. I'm outta here & probably won't be back; unhealthy moderation practices make for unhealthy discussions. ProphetZarquon (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Eh? There don't appear to have been any comments removed so far, and the discussion above leans towards not doing anything if possible. So you're leaving because people aren't doing things you don't want them to do? Seems... odd. 172.70.162.57 08:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

My own comment here was removed. The reason I replied specifically to your comment in particular, is because it was discussing the problem at hand. (I can hope the removal of comments was in error, but I find it more likely that a large number of comments regarded as junk (venting anger, or nonsense word spam, or ads) were removed, & some 'inciting' comments got removed along with them.) I understand that moderation is an unsolved challenge but a site where I get edited out of conversations, is not worth my time to participate.

ProphetZarquon (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Please notice that I said “vandalism and trolling”, not comments. I agree with you and am against removing comments (such as from I’m With Her). I think that we can agree that vandalism can be immediately removed and that we shouldn’t respond to trolls/rage bait, correct? The intention of my message was to have the talk page or the explanation page semi-protected if the vandalism got too bad and it’s better to limit messages temporarily. This is the same policy that Wikipedia uses by semi-protecting controversial and often vandalised articles, one that has worked for years. Besides, the main intention of these talk pages is to discuss how to improve the article and have discussions about how to explain or word things, not promote political ideology. If that occurs, semi-protection would be a good tool to use to limit such off-topic discussions. There’s a time and place for that. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from my reply above (& hopefully by context from where I replied), I was not objecting to your reply, but to the suggestion of locking. Perma-locks suck... as does coming back to see comments gone. I am not angry that moderation was discussed; I'm deeply discouraged by how it was (already) applied.

ProphetZarquon (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, explainxkcd has gone off the cliff, and not just on this particular article, but repeatedly, and it’s getting worse and worse. I'm not going to edit it myself, but might I suggest a rule of thumb? If it isn’t necessary to help some understand the COMIC, then don’t put it in there in the first place! 172.69.23.176 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

"Repeatedly"? By what criteria? Obviously in your opinion, anyway, and I'm not going to tell you what to think (or try to guess what you're thinking), but I believe you're being subjective. Nice to hear from you, though. Please do come by again some time. 141.101.98.226 20:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. This really should be the policy. I have strong political opinions like just about everyone (and like everyone, I certainly think that my views are logically derived from cold hard objective facts), but I have refrained from editing this page because I am VERY aware that it would do absolutely nothing to help anyone, and detract from the purpose of this website. "Explain xkcd" is for explaining xkcd, it's not a a platform to persuade the internet to adopt your political opinions. MeZimm (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know what you guys are talking about, at least regarding the explanation for this specific comic. I believe the contributors have done a pretty good job keeping the explanation pretty close to neutral, except maybe it might be just a little opinionated in one paragraph. Most of the "extra" explanation in there provides some necessary background that may not be quite as obvious to future readers. Any leaning toward one opinion or another is mostly an explanation of the leaning attributed to the characters by the author himself. If you have a specific rebuke against a portion that seems more opinionated or subjective, either tag it in the explanation without changing the explanation itself, or bring up the specifics in this discussion. Please try not to bash this whole site and the contributors because of your own opinions. SammyChips (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's much partisan in the explanation. The comic itself expresses Randall's opinion of Trump's tariffs, and the explanation just describes the context and explains how the comic expresses this opinion. Barmar (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a small test. Do you believe it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE that the 2020 election was rigged, and therefore Trump's statements were obviously, objectively, and incontrovertibly "false"? Because if you do, 36% of Americans (as of December 2023) would disagree with you. Now to be sure, that IS a minority - but it's also more than a 1:2 ratio of Americans saying "no" vs Americans saying "yes". If 100 million people say "no" to something while 200 million say "yes" (or more accurately, 122 million say "no," 211 million say "yes," and 7 million say "no comment"), it's safe to say that the claim is still genuinely controversial - especially when the very institutions being accused of misconduct are themselves being cited as evidence, giving them every incentive to downplay the severity of the problems and assert their own trustworthiness. (An analogy might be made of a police officer who has been accused of a crime being cited as an expert witness in his own trial.) Now, I realize that everyone has to simplify the world around them to some extent, and for some people, that takes the form of relying on axioms like "important people with important jobs have decided it, and that settles the matter." If that is how someone chooses to see the world, I won't be able to change their mind on that. But that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. And there's something nefarious about branding anyone who doesn't accept that particular paradigm as if they are thereby worthy of contempt, and their perspective as deserving censorship. (And, if you think I am exaggerating when I say "censorship," then do you agree we should change the word "false" in the second paragraph to merely "controversial" or "widely-criticized"?) No one is immune to motivated reasoning or cognitive biases; that includes myself. I really do my best to keep that in mind as I form my opinions. I hope everyone reading this does the same. MeZimm (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. If I convince enough people that the earth is flat (and there are a few special snowflakes in that camp already), it becomes a genuinely controversial claim? Just because 36% of Americans have either never tried to understand how elections actually work, bothered to help an election, or are—sorry—utterly dense, that doesn't mean we should treat their opinion as fact. The majority of Russians believes their war on Ukraine is justified. Does that mean we must consider that a possibility? No! It's just propaganda! Why do we even need to discuss this??172.70.240.90 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I find it ironic how a comment lamenting about having a “rule of thumb” to prevent unnecessary and political explanations about the comic has now turned into a debate on whether or not this topic is controversial. Please have this conversation somewhere else where it is more appropriate. Additionally, I believe that some context about political policy would be helpful for understanding, but it’s a thin, thin line to tread to prevent any bias or slanted POVs. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 15:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure how best to integrate it into the explanation, but I think https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations should be cited somewhere in the article, and I think it should be stated in more explicit terms that Trump's reciprocal tariffs are based on what is effectively a calculation of the United States' trade deficits with other countries. I think the article would benefit from more explicit descriptions and coverage of the tariff announcement for posterity, as I can imagine someone being really confused about this 10 years from now. I think reactions and backlash should be mentioned to provide context, but the article shouldn't get too detailed with any justifications for said reactions, so as not to take a side. Right now I feel that the article is a bit too in-the-weeds with explaining exactly what tariffs are and what a trade deficit is without providing context for why the comic is politically relevant, which I think is necessary to understand the comic. 162.158.62.166 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

At the moment the article says that "Donald Trump claimed that if the U.S. has a trade deficit with another country, then the U.S. is getting ripped off." This claim seems pretty ridiculous, but I have no idea whether it is what Mr. Trump said. Since the whole cartoon seems based on this premise, I think it would help to have a citation to make this clearer for posterity. 172.71.150.109 05:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much his whole schtick on this. Googling gives numerous direct reports or videos of his rhetoric where he says, often visible in the summary (or, with videos, subtitle/surtitles on the thumbnail view). I included an actual quote, thought that better than linking to BBC News (annoying those who don't trust the BBC as a source), Fox News (annoy those who don't trust Fox as a source), etc... 172.71.26.42 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be better to link it to a source though, rather than just leaving it as an unevidenced quote.172.70.162.58 08:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Choose your prefered source and example of the quote, then. Not hard to find. (Or to have tripped over and generally get blasted with over the last week or so, if you've not been avoiding newspapers, blocking news notifications and avoiding all TV/radio news in anticipation of an upcoming film release.) As long as it isn't the National Enquirer or The Onion, it'll probably do. 172.71.241.18 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It's so not hard to find that you can't produce a single example. 172.68.12.180 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

LMGTFY 172.68.205.151 19:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)