General Discussion

Don't appear to be arguing. Agree where you can.
But slip in emotional triggers, because only emotion works with simpletons.

tRumpanzee: "Oh, finally eggs are coming down."

Us: "Yeah, finally. You like coffee? Now that will go wild because we'll be paying 50% more on Brazilian coffee." (Notice the use of "we" and not "you"; for the emotion of solidarity, and no blaming -- they'll get around to that.)

t: "But the coffee companies will pay it!"

Now you can let a little logic creep in by putting it in personal emotional terms, and disagree by seeming to agree:

Us: "Sure. Say you have a coffee company. You have three options: 1) Sell to other countries and skip the US, 2) Pay the tariffs yourself and go out of business, 3) Raise prices because you have an addicted market. Which would you choose?"

t: "But I'd start growing coffee in Hawaii!"

Us: "And you would just wait years for coffee bushes to grow with no money coming in? Me, I'm stocking up on coffee while I can. Are you going to do that too?" (Puts it back in the here-and-now, prompting action that can only make them think of and acknowledge tariff impacts. Stocking up gets emotions involved. Buy five cans and cut back on date night?)


(There are other arguments to use but they require some receptivity to economic logic: Land in Hawaii would become hellishly expensive as every US coffee company suddenly wants to grow there. Or they'd just raise prices.)