If Biden's Trade Policy Was Really Driven by 'Equity,' Trump's Tariffs Would Already Be Gone
Tariffs are a regressive tax that have driven inflation higher and harm poorer families the most.

If "equity" is the central principle guiding the Biden administration's trade policies, you wouldn't know it by looking at what has been done—or, rather, hasn't been done—in the past 18 months.
Still, that's what U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai claims. In a tweet on Wednesday, Tai wrote that Biden is taking a "whole-of-government approach to advancing equity."
"Equity is also central to our trade and economic strategy to create sustainable growth that is equitably shared," she wrote. "Addressing the challenges to communities of color is vital to that strategy."
If that were merely a big pile of progressive pablum, it would be easy enough to ignore. But it's also objectively inaccurate. If "equity" were the prime concern of the Biden administration, it would have long ago disposed of the tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump on steel, aluminum, and thousands of other products. Those tariffs are nothing more than taxes—and taxes that fall most painfully on people who can least afford to pay them.
And if the Biden administration truly cared about equity, it wouldn't have stopped there. As research from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a left-leaning think tank, has shown, tariffs of all kinds are regressive taxes that hike costs for consumers and make it particularly difficult for poorer households to afford basic goods.
Eliminating many tariffs that serve little purpose "would ease financial burdens in a small but real way for American low-income and minority workers and their families, helping to raise their living standards without intensifying competitive pressure," Ed Gresser, the PPI's vice president and director for trade and global markets, wrote in a report published in April.
Trump's tariffs have contributed to inflation and helped to artificially inflate the cost of everything from appliances to housing. About two-thirds of all imports from China are now subject to tariffs when they enter the United States, with the average tariff being 19.3 percent. That's six times higher than the average tariff on Chinese-made imports before Trump's haphazard trade war began. That's certainly not helping poorer Americans improve their standard of living.
But, as Gresser points out, other aspects of the U.S. tariff code are also to blame for imposing regressive taxes on poorer Americans. Under the "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) system of tariffs that are applied to imports from countries with which the U.S. does not have a specific trade deal, many common consumer goods are subject to higher tariffs than their luxury alternatives. Stainless steel spoons are tariffed at a much higher rate than far more expensive sterling silver spoons, for example, and cheap sneakers are charged a tariff more than five times higher than leather dress shoes.

"This skew," Gresser writes, means that America's system of tariffs is not only "regressive, but actually discriminatory against the poor."
For months, we've been treated to headlines promising that the Biden administration is considering lifting Trump's tariffs. In June, administration officials told The New York Times that lifting tariffs might reduce inflation by a quarter of a percentage point—even though independent studies suggested the effect could be greater. Yet nothing was done, even after Biden promised that corralling inflation was his "top domestic priority."
When Biden has taken action on tariffs, he's maintained Trump's strategy. Tariffs on solar panels and their component parts that were set to expire this year were extended by an executive order Biden issued in February. That's despite the fact that Biden's solar panel tariffs will make it more difficult for the country to meet Biden's climate goals.
Now, Tai is claiming that equity is central to America's trade policy. Hopefully, that signals a coming tidal wave of trade liberalization and tariff reductions that would make it easier for poorer American households to afford essential products.
With the Biden administration's track record on trade, however, it's more likely this is a bunch of cheap talk that will be followed by a disappointing lack of action.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If that were merely a big pile of progressive pablum, it would be easy enough to ignore.
That progressive pablum that we've been "ignoring" has crept into every institution at every level, everywhere, all the time. That's the price of standing on the sidelines of the culture war and snickering.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got 13,000 us dollars only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (any-08) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://www.bitlylinks.com/NOHcbZIFu
I have the PGA tournament on. Cuts to commercial. It's some payroll provider called UKG pimping the bullshit gender gap. White guy and black woman side by side. List their experience, position, accomplishments. "Revenue in the division I'm head of is up 35% since my arrival" says Competent Black Lady Executive. Cuts back to white guy "and I'm paid 18% more than she is"
Riiiiiiight
since my arrival is not the same as since my policies went into effect
Trump's tariffs GOOD! Biden's tariffs BAD! All good tribalists already KNOW these things!
(Nothing new to see here, folks! Let's move on back to how ALL democrats are groomers and child molesters!)
Or, Some Trump tariffs good, some Biden tariffs good.
I’m not sure why you hate tariffs so much, they’re a damn sight better tax than income tax.
All taxes suck. Tariffs suck extra-hard because Government Almighty gets to pick winners and losers, in a totally unaccountable way! Donate politically NOW to protect yourself and your business! PLUS, it favors WAR! War also sucks extra-hard! Where free trade doesn't go, boots and armies will go! International inter-dependence militates AGAINST war!
Historical case in point:
https://reason.com/2019/04/22/trumps-washing-machine-tariffs-cleaned-out-consumers/
Trump’s Washing Machine Tariffs Cleaned Out Consumers
A new report finds the tariffs raised $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion.
PROTECTIONISM DOESN’T WORK!!! DUH!!!
Protect American washing-machine makers from Chinese competition? The FIRST thing that American washing-machine makers do, is jack UP their prices… AND the prices of dryers to boot, too! To SOAK the hell out of all of us consumers!!!
From the above-linked Reason article about washing machines…
“All told, those tariffs raised about $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion during 2018 … (deleted). Although the trade policy did cause some manufacturers to shift production from overseas to the United States in an effort to avoid the new tariffs, the 1,800 jobs created by Trump’s washing machine tariffs cost consumers an estimated $820,000 per job.”
Summary: Nickels and dimes to the USA treasury; boatloads of pain for consumers. USA jobs created? Yes, at GREAT expense! Putting these 1.8 K workers on a super-generous welfare program would have been WAY better for all the rest of us! Plus, you know the WORKERS don’t make super-huge bucks (no $820,000 per job for THEM); the goodies flow to the EXECUTIVES at the top of the washing-machine companies! The same ones who play golf with The Donald, and join him for gang-banging Stormy Daniels! Essentially at our expense!
QUIT CALLING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE MENTALLY ILL!!!
*puts finger to earpiece*
GENDER DISPHORIA IS A SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS AND MUST BE DECLARED A DISABILITY!
DYSPHORIA* DAMN EARPIECE IS ACTING UP AGAIN!
Sure, if it is actual diagnosed gender dysphoria and not this self ID whimsy getting tossed around today. Medical treatment for medical problems with no other treatment is one thing, manipulating people into permanent changes to make yourself feel better is another.
They're one in the same now.
The issue of course being how we treat people that are disabled...mitigating their disability in some way.
You dont help a person with a limp by fully breaking their leg or cutting it off
You dont help a schizophrenic by telling them all those voices are talking to them and give them ear plugs.
You dont help an anorexic girl by saying "youre right, you actually should have a BMI of ten, should we go hit the gym again and also btw here are some emetics and laxatives"
So no gender-affirming care wouldn't be covered by the ADA as it is normally used. Unless of course you were affirming their biological sex and offering them therapy to help them cope with their gender dysphoria (which is a PROBLEM, not something we are trying to encourage)
"You don't help a schizophrenic by telling them all those voices are talking to them and give them ear plugs."
If the shrinks were honest, they'd admit that the schizophrenics would be better off taking talk therapy from the voices in their heads, than talking to the shrinks and taking pills! But shrinks want $$$ money $$$! Follow the $$$ money!
(The main difference is that the voices in their heads aren't licensed and backed up by Government Almighty, and so, therefore, are more honest!)
Pretty amazing how BIG a deal this has become to the left/establishment. They really spend a lot of time and energy pushing it.
Does it occur to you that this is absolutely absurd?
Probably something to think about.
No!!
Human Beings Aren't Clownfish.
Some humans ID as another species, and so, species changes will be deemed "medically necessary", and so, MUST be covered by health insurance! See "Cat Man" Dennis Avner! == "Stalking Cat"! https://en.newsner.com/wow/stalking-cat-aka-dennis-avner-net-worth-children-wife-height/
Wait a second. I thought transgender ism was expressly excluded from the definition of “disability” under the Americans with disabilities act.
I was right.
SEC. 12211. [Section 512]
(a) Homosexuality and bisexuality. - For purposes of the definition of "disability" in section 12102(2) of this title [section 3(2)], homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.
(b) Certain conditions. - Under this chapter, the term "disability" shall not include-
(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
Eric. Define equity for me. Is allowing rampant theft equitable? Is monetary and industry manipulation equitable?
Take the first example of corporate theft. It has two negative drivers for domestic industry. They lose market advantage from internal development leading to less reason to innovate. They also endure higher costs from paying for increased infrastructure and security.
It is amazing watching the tariffs are costs crowd ignore the increased costs from bad market actors. Allowing bad market actors to run unimpeded is an actual negative market response in a free market setting. We do not live in an ideal market.
A second example would be domestic regulations increasing costs against foreign markets. I would love for the all tariffs are bad crowd to at least recognize and admit to market disruptions imposed domestically from domestic regulations. Even with the baby formula discussion Eric tried to wedge it into a tariff issue when in actuality it was a regulation issue.
Being so myopic on this topic just demonstrates an unseriousness to affect change but merely to complain.
There has to be a market response to bad market actors. Full stop. Or else the market will always be distorted.
And for clarification for the people who generally distort what I just wrote...
Retaliatory tariffs against bad market actors are not the same as market protective tariffs to manipulate the market. You need to separate the two.
"You need to separate the two."
Who is the "you" here, Kemo Slobby? You and Der TrumpfenFuhrer's Government Almighty ass usual, right, right-wing asshole? No thanks, I'd like to be part of the FREE, non-Marxist market! NOT a mark for right-wing wrong-nut snake-oil salesmen!
BE FREE, people! BE FREE!!!
True libertarians are authoritarian right-wingers. Ask anyone on these here comments.
I would love for the all tariffs are bad crowd to at least recognize and admit to market disruptions imposed domestically from domestic regulations.
Free trade supporters talk about regulatory costs all the time.
Even with the baby formula discussion Eric tried to wedge it into a tariff issue when in actuality it was a regulation issue.
It was BOTH tariff and regulatory issue. The regulations added an expense that wasn't worth the tariff. Two things can happen at the same time. We know you're practically wedded to tariffs because of your boy Trump, but lying about people you disagree with isn't necessary. Oh, shit. Who am I talking to. If you didn't like about people you'd have nothing to say.
likelie stupid autocorrectPoor sarc
why just Trumps tariffs, why not Obamas tariffs on tires and any other tariffs he or any other president put in place. i know Trump is not the only president to put tariffs on
Eric, voting and elections have consequences. You voted for Biden, now you've made us all suffer your consequences. Next time, think about more than just "mean tweets" when voting.
You're using the wrong definition of equity.
Biden now has equity in Burisma, that was surely very successful trade policy from his perspective.
Higher cost inflation. Increasing the monetary supply is what causes inflation. If the supply of dollars stays constant and prices go up, people just purchase fewer goods. And that is the intent of tariffs (shifting demand from imported to domestic goods) whether you think they are good or bad.
And why are we discussing anything about “equity”, whatever the hell the term is supposed to mean? If you don’t like tariffs, just say so. Pulling out the equity card turns the conversation into an appeal for progressive approval of your argument.
Apparently they don’t accept brackets in the text any longer. It should read “higher costs do not equal inflation”.
Increasing the monetary supply is what causes inflation.
It is one of the causes. It's not the only cause, nor does increasing the money supply necessarily cause inflation.
Please explain that mechanism for how tariffs increase inflation.
The linked article says: "Tariffs do exactly one thing: raise prices."
High prices are a symptom of inflation, not the cause. There are other things besides inflation that can cause prices to rise.
A price that is higher because of a tariff is not an inflationary price increase.
The only thing that causes inflation is an increase in the money supply, and nobody controls the money supply except the Federal Reserve.
You think a libertarian site would remember Ron Paul's words a little better.
The term "inflation" was perverted to mean an increase in prices when it's original meaning was an "inflation" of the money supply. Keynesians perverted the meaning to conceal the effects of their expansionary monetary policies.
Now c'mon Eric, don't be taking credit for this article. All you did was paraphrase an article you read in Vox
As for tariffs on China, I don't give a shit. I'd prefer not a single Chinese slave-labor product be sold here in the US. I don't care how much more an item costs as long as I know it was not made by Uyghur slave-labor or the country that condones slave-labor.
Ten again, I do realize you had to meet your daily quota of "Orange Man Bad" articles.
Equity has nothing to do with equality. It refers to "reparations" owed by a relatively successful group to the less successful group whose inferior position is supposedly due to "structural power discrepancies".
If the average level of (power, wealth, fame or any other quality you choose) differs between two groups who differ in an identifiable but uncontrollable characteristic, then it is due to racism, sexism, transphobia, or homophobia. All of these words are euphemisms for free market choices since the solution is always coerced payments against market forces.