exactly! tarrifs decrease the quantity supplied resulting in a leftward shift of the supply curve and therefore increasing the price of the good at hand.
Aggregate supply increases cause movement on the demand curve, leading in the end to more popped tags and higher welfare for the consumer. Additionally, wealthier consumers would be able to buy more, and donate their surplus secondhand goods to thrift stores in the process.
(Also, fact confirmed for fun)
This is another version of the broken window fallacy. Reusing clothes that are still fine frees up resources to create other kinds of value, abroad or domestic.
But Macklemore is advocating reuse of items that were donated, which if anything keeps money domestic and actively avoids paying overseas manufacturers. Also the clothes are cheaper than new foreign-made clothes meaning the domestic product is actually already undercutting the foreign one, albeit not very successfully because used items are seen as inferior and maybe not even directly competitive with new items.
Fun fact, at the height of this song's popularity, thrift stores reported no uptick in sales
Uphold Macklemore-Ryan Lewis Thought!
Branding essentially creates monopolistic competition where identical products with different brands act as imperfect, rather than perfect substitutes. So, Gucci and Coco can charge more than an equivalent product. However: take away the tariffs, they can manufacture cheaper and sell more, and they'll reinvest the profits into larger production or more stores.
Also, you're right that it's a status thing: some branded high end clothes are luxury goods and they actually might decrease in sales if they reduce price in some instances.
did you just make me upvote macklemore? I hate you OP
I got a t-shirt that cost $80 pre-sale and $48 when my mom bought it on sale.
It's a really nice t-shirt though.