There's a super easy fix for that.
All they gotta do is get rid of their previously existing tariffs on OUR goods.
Wanna import a US car? 25% tariff, says the Swiss gov.
Are those steel and aluminum products you are importing? That'll be 50%, says the Swiss gov.
There's more.
Wasn't quick finding those, as all the search engines try to say Switzerland has no tariffs on US goods, but there's tons of exemptions to that.
Every time I asked about their tariffs, all it responded with was Trump's 39% tariff on them and how terrible it is. Had to word questions very specifically to get it to give an actual answer to the question.
All I wanna know, is if tariffs are so bad for us, why do all other nations use them?
Why are we the only ones expected not to use them?
From Grok:
Tariffs aren't inherently "bad" for everyone or every situation—they're a tool governments use for specific purposes, but economists generally agree that broad or high tariffs tend to harm economies overall by raising prices for consumers, distorting markets, and inviting retaliation that reduces global trade. That said, your question touches on a common perception: if tariffs are so detrimental, why do so many countries (including the U.S.) still impose them? The reality is that not *all* nations use high tariffs—many advanced economies keep them low or zero under international agreements—but tariffs remain widespread for practical reasons. I'll break this down step by step, drawing on global trade data and economic principles.
### 1. **Do All Other Nations Use Tariffs? Not Really—It Depends on the Country and Context**
- No, not every country imposes high tariffs across the board. In fact, the global average applied tariff rate (weighted by trade volumes) is only about 2.6% as of recent data. Many developed nations, like those in the European Union (average ~2.7%), Japan (~1.9%), Switzerland (~1.7%), and even the U.S. (pre-2025 hikes: ~1.5%), maintain very low rates to promote efficient trade and economic growth.
- Higher tariffs are more common in developing or emerging economies, where they serve as a key policy lever. For example:
- India: ~12% average (up to 100% on cars).
- Brazil: ~11.2%.
- China: ~3% overall, but higher on specific goods like agriculture or autos.
- Bermuda: ~23.8% (highest globally, often for revenue in small economies).
- Under the World Trade Organization (WTO), most of the world's 170+ members commit to "bound" rates (maximums they won't exceed without negotiation), but they can apply lower "applied" rates. Free trade agreements (FTAs) further reduce or eliminate tariffs between partners—e.g., the EU's internal trade is mostly tariff-free, and the U.S. had low/no tariffs with Canada and Mexico under USMCA until recent changes.
- In 2025, the U.S. has dramatically increased its own tariffs (now averaging ~18-27% depending on the measure and exemptions), making it one of the higher-tariff nations globally. This has prompted retaliation: China now averages ~84% on U.S. goods, the EU ~20-30%, and others like India ~50%. So, the U.S. is now joining the "high-tariff club" it often criticizes.
Here's a table of average applied tariff rates for select major economies (based on 2023 WTO/World Bank data, pre-2025 U.S. hikes; 2025 U.S. figures are estimates from recent analyses):
| Country/Region | Average Applied Tariff Rate (Pre-2025) | Notes/2025 Updates |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|
| United States | 1.5% | Now ~18-27% (highest since 1930s due to reciprocal tariffs on China, EU, etc.). |
| European Union | 2.7% | Retaliatory hikes to 20-30% on U.S. goods in 2025. |
| China | 3.0% | Retaliatory ~84% on U.S. imports; U.S. tariffs on China now ~125%. |
| Japan | 1.9% | Low; negotiated down to ~15% under U.S. deals in 2025. |
| India | 12% | High on autos/agriculture; U.S. reciprocal at 50%. |
| Brazil | 11.2% | U.S. reciprocal at 50%; focuses on protecting industry. |
| Canada | 1.5% | U.S. tariffs now ~35%; most exempt under USMCA but tensions rising. |
| Mexico | 4.4% | U.S. tariffs ~25-35%; paused for negotiations. |
| Global Average | 2.6% | Varies widely; developing nations higher (~5-10%). |
Sources: WTO Tariff Profiles, World Bank, and 2025 analyses from Tax Foundation and Yale Budget Lab.
In short, while tariffs aren't universal or uniformly high, they're a standard feature of international trade. Post-WWII, global tariffs fell sharply due to GATT/WTO negotiations (from ~40% in the 1940s to under 5% today in advanced economies), but they've ticked up recently amid protectionism.
### 2. **Why Do Countries Impose Tariffs If They're Often Economically Costly?**
Tariffs have clear downsides: They act like a tax on imports, raising prices for consumers (e.g., a 10% tariff on a $100 imported shirt adds $10 to the cost, often passed to buyers), reducing choices, and slowing growth by limiting efficient global specialization. Studies show they create "deadweight losses" (inefficiencies where overall welfare drops) and can spark trade wars, as seen in 2018-2019 when U.S.-China tariffs cost Americans ~$50 billion annually in higher prices without boosting jobs much. Yet countries use them because the benefits—real or perceived—can outweigh costs in targeted ways. Here are the main reasons, based on economic theory and historical practice:
- **Protecting Domestic Industries and Jobs (Infant Industry Argument)**: Many countries, especially developing ones, use tariffs to shield "infant industries" (new or struggling sectors) from foreign competition. This gives local firms time to grow, innovate, and achieve economies of scale. For example:
- India and Brazil impose high tariffs on autos and electronics to build their manufacturing bases, arguing it prevents deindustrialization.
- Historically, the U.S. itself used high tariffs in the 19th century (up to 50%) to protect early industries like textiles from British dominance.
- In 2025, the U.S. is doing this with steel/aluminum (now 50%) and autos (25%) to "reshore" jobs, though economists note it often protects inefficient firms long-term, leading to higher costs.
- **Generating Government Revenue**: In low-income countries without strong income tax systems, tariffs are an easy way to collect money at the border. They accounted for ~90% of U.S. federal revenue in the 1800s but now are minor (~2-5% globally). Small islands like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands rely on them heavily (~20-24%) because they're simple to administer.
- **National Security and Strategic Goals**: Tariffs protect critical sectors like defense, food, or tech from foreign dependence. The U.S. uses them for steel (national security under Section 232) and now semiconductors/pharma. China subsidizes its industries while tariffing U.S. tech, prompting reciprocity. In 2025, U.S. tariffs on Canada/Mexico/China aim to curb fentanyl/immigration, blending trade with geopolitics.
- **Retaliation and Bargaining Power**: Tariffs pressure trading partners to lower their barriers or make concessions. This is "reciprocal" trade in action—e.g., the EU retaliates against U.S. steel tariffs with duties on American whiskey/harley-davidsons. Trump's 2025 policy explicitly mirrors others' rates to force deals, like the EU's recent agreement for 15% on U.S. goods in exchange for energy buys. Developing nations use them against "unfair" practices like subsidies.
- **Correcting "Unfair" Trade Practices or Imbalances**: Countries tariff to counter dumping (selling below cost), subsidies, or currency manipulation. The U.S. claims China (~3% average but with non-tariff barriers) "unfairly" dominates via state aid, justifying 125% duties. Tariffs can also address trade deficits (U.S. ~$1T in goods), though economists say deficits reflect savings/investment gaps, not just barriers.
- **Environmental, Health, or Social Standards**: Tariffs discourage imports that don't meet local rules, like EU carbon border taxes or U.S. duties on unsafe goods (e.g., tainted beef).
These reasons explain why tariffs persist: They're politically popular (protecting jobs wins votes) and can yield short-term gains for specific groups, even if long-term costs (e.g., ~0.5-1% GDP hit from 2025 U.S. tariffs) outweigh them. A 2018 University of Chicago survey found 93% of economists agree free trade boosts welfare more than protectionism.
### 3. **Why Are Tariffs "Bad" for the U.S. (and Most Economies)? A Balanced View**
- **For Consumers**: You pay more—2025 U.S. tariffs could add ~$2,000-4,900 per household annually via higher prices on imports like electronics, clothes, and cars. Low-income households suffer most (regressive tax).
- **For the Economy**: Reduced trade lowers efficiency; U.S. GDP could drop 0.6-1% long-term from 2025 policies, with ~500,000 fewer jobs (net loss, as gains in steel are offset by losses elsewhere).
- **Retaliation Risks**: Others hit back, hurting U.S. exports (e.g., farmers lost $27B in 2018-2019).
- **But Not Always "Bad"**: Targeted tariffs can work for security (e.g., U.S. steel) or development (e.g., South Korea's auto industry in the 1970s). Revenue from 2025 U.S. tariffs could hit $3T over a decade, funding priorities if not offset by retaliation.
In essence, other nations use tariffs for protection, revenue, and leverage—just like the U.S. is doing now—because the immediate political/economic wins (e.g., shielding jobs) appeal despite broader costs. But evidence shows low-tariff, open trade drives prosperity: Global poverty fell sharply post-WWII liberalization. If you're concerned about U.S. impacts, watch for negotiations—many 2025 tariffs are paused for deals, but escalation could hurt everyone. For specifics on products or countries, let me know!
reason.com
www.lloydslist.com
think.ing.com
www.freightwaves.com
larrycjohnson.substack.com
gcaptain.com
www.anon-co.com
