ClaimsTyler Cowen

“not true that U.S. consumers are bearing the full burden”

Tyler Cowen, writing on X 13 May 2019 Post by @tylercowen on X, 2019-05-13 (X)

Factual Economics and markets

US consumers are not bearing the full burden of the tariffs in the US-China trade war.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

Judged as of May 2019 against tariff pass-through research. True: the evidence shows that less than 100% of the cost of the US tariffs on Chinese goods fell on US consumers and buyers, with some share absorbed by foreign exporters, US firms' margins, or otherwise. Mostly true: pass-through to US buyers was close to complete but measurably below full, or the burden fell mainly on US importers and firms rather than on consumers themselves. Mixed: studies conflict. Mostly false: the main studies find essentially full pass-through to US buyers, and the claim rests only on a technical distinction, such as US firms rather than consumers paying. False: the evidence shows US consumers bore the full burden or more.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from US Trade Policy Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Working Paper No. 19-12), by Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath, Brent Neiman, and Jenny Tang · 2019

    “We start by documenting that the tariffs were almost fully passed through to the total prices paid by importers, suggesting that the tariffs’ incidence has fallen largely on the United States.”
  2. E2 Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from US Trade Policy Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Working Paper No. 19-12), by Alberto Cavallo, Gita Gopinath, Brent Neiman, and Jenny Tang · 2019

    “Our results suggest that retailers are absorbing a significant share of the increase in the cost of affected imports by accepting lower profit margins on those goods.”
  3. E3 Column: Trump’s trade war is politically motivated, yet hurts consumers and GOP voters, study shows Los Angeles Times (Michael Hiltzik column) · 4 March 2019

    “More generally, the economists’ paper shows that the Trump tariffs have been entirely passed through to U.S. consumers. That’s because foreign exporters haven’t moderated the impact of the U.S. tariffs by cutting prices.”
  4. E4 New China Tariffs Increase Costs to U.S. Households Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics · 23 May 2019

    “Studies, including our own, have found that the tariffs that the United States imposed in 2018 have had complete passthrough into domestic prices of imports, which means that Chinese exporters did not reduce their prices.”

Reasoning

E1 and E4 find that the 2018 tariffs were passed through almost completely to the prices US importers paid, meaning Chinese exporters did not absorb much of the cost and the burden fell largely on the United States. However, E2 finds that at the store level, retailers absorbed a significant share of the higher import costs by accepting lower profit margins. That means consumers did not bear the full burden. E3 says the tariffs were entirely passed through to consumers, but it reaches that conclusion from border import prices. So the claim holds in the sense that US firms absorbed part of the cost, even though the evidence indicates the burden fell largely on the United States [E1][E2].

Cite this claim

Tyler Cowen, “US consumers are not bearing the full burden of the tariffs in the US-China trade war.” (said 13 May 2019). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_e56b8b8144e1, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_e56b8b8144e1

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Tyler Cowen, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Tyler Cowen

  1. Mostly false Factual 4 March 2026
    “The World Bank seems weaker in relative terms, more displaced by private capital markets.”

    The World Bank seems weaker in relative terms, more displaced by private capital markets.

  2. Mostly true Factual 4 March 2026
    “There are some startups, but they’re not significant.”

    In the university sector there are some startups, but they are not significant.

  3. Mostly true Factual 12 January 2026
    “He has a new book *How Africa Works*”

    Joe Studwell has a new book titled How Africa Works.

  4. Mixed Factual 6 December 2025
    “Both #1 (brain drain) and #2 have taken a hit in recent times.”

    The UK's human capital (through brain drain) and its matching of market demands have both declined in recent times.

  5. Mostly false Factual 6 December 2025
    “They are also, in my view, the biggest reasons why the UK currently is in economic trouble.”

    In Cowen's view, weak human capital and mismatch with market demand are the biggest reasons the UK is currently in economic trouble.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.