Chris Christie Is Right, Trump's Trade War Accomplished Nothing
Nikki Haley says "Trump was good on trade." What?

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made a strong point at tonight's GOP presidential debate by criticizing former President Donald Trump's trade policies.
"You can't say he was good on trade," Christie said, directly rebutting a comment former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had made earlier in the evening. "He didn't change one Chinese policy in the process. He failed on it."
"All he did was impose tariffs, which raise the prices for every American," Christie added.
Trump's presidency overturned decades of a generally pro-trade Republican consensus and ushered in an era of assuming that trade is bad for American workers and consumers. He hiked tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels, washing machines, and a wide range of Chinese goods. For Trump and his allies, those higher tariffs—which were directly paid by American importers and consumers—were meant to reconfigure the trading relationship between America and China.
But Christie is exactly right. It failed.
The one material thing Trump's trade war accomplished was a so-called "phase one" trade deal with China, which he signed with Chinese President Xi Jinping to much fanfare in December 2019. That deal included a promise that China would buy $200 million more American exports annually. Those increased purchases were supposed to be spread across multiple sectors of the American export economy, something Trump promised would provide much-needed relief to farmers, manufacturers, and other businesses harmed by the tariffs he'd imposed since taking office.
China didn't do that. According to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, American exports to China didn't even reach pre-trade-war levels in the first year that "deal" was in place. Both countries seem to have quietly dropped any pretense of following through on the agreement.
It's certainly true that the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted global supply chains in ways that couldn't be foreseen when Trump and Xi signed that deal, played a role in that outcome. But the idea that China could be cajoled into buying more American goods—as if it is nations that trade with one another, as opposed to individuals living within those nations—was always misguided and made Trump's approach unlikely to succeed.
And the idea that piling tariffs—that is, taxes—on Americans would change China's behavior? That was never based in reality.
Similarly, Trump claimed that his policies would reduce America's trade deficit—the annual gap between imports and exports. But the trade deficit continued to rise while he was in office, and recently hit a new record high. (The good news is that a country's trade deficit doesn't really matter.)
During Trump's time in office, there was a sizable segment of Republicans who at least regularly called these claims into question. But they have largely left, or were driven out of the party, and the GOP candidates running for office this year seem to share Trump's skepticism about the value of foreign trade.
It was refreshing to hear Christie—though he is also likely on his way out of GOP politics—keep the flame of sensible Republican thinking on trade alive.
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
I'll have to deviate from traditional libertarian free-trade ideologies. There is nothing wrong with raising tariffs on an autocratic regime, if it's done for humanitarian reasons. The government in China is currently engaged in genocide against Turkish minority groups in their country. Not to mention decades of torture and abuse of other minorities like Mongolians, Tibetans, or religious groups. Anything we can do to reduce trade with this genocidal regime we should do, with the aim of one day having no trade with them.
Yes it is wrong to raise tariffs "for humanitarian reasons", because only people decide what is humantarian. If individual people want to not buy Chinese products, that is their decision. It's not only the linertarian individualist way, it's the practical way. Otherwise every election can change things so drastically that people and businesses can't plan ahead.
It also gives foreigners and protesters one single point of persuasion. It's why you have so many protesters -- they aren't trying to change people's minds, they are trying to change politicians' votes.
Imagine how different all those BLM and Antifa riots would have been if the government had no say in what they wanted. There'd have been no autonomous zones, no burned out stores.
Imagine how different illegal immigration would be without government inviting in "refugees", busing them around the country, putting them up in hotels and forbidding them from working while paying all the bills, and forbidding border property owners from defending their land.
Fuck off statist. You're no libertarian.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Didn't mean as a reply. Moved.
Yes, this! Reduce (cut to the BONE!) Government Almighty special favors for special people, and people will no longer fight and riot for said special favors! Plain and simple!
Tariffs are the ultimate in special favors for special people.
But that's like saying the police should not try to shut down markets for recently stolen goods, because only people can decide whether to patronize thieves or not.
Wouldn't've written that had I seen JesseAZ already went thru this.
No it's nothing remotely close to that. The internet allows for all sorts of people to claim they know and understand the truth. It's awesome.
"Yes it is wrong to raise tariffs “for humanitarian reasons”
Depends upon what those "humanitarian" reasons are.Trade with Red China helps enable communist tyranny. The technology we sell them is in fact also used to produce military goods, which increases their threat capabilities over their neighbors and to us.. They use the technology they buy from us to surveil and oppress their people. Trade with Red China aids and abets tyranny, and increases defense costs. It's morally right to charge people tarriffs to offset costs and tyranny their trade with dictatorrship produces. If the tarriffs limit the trade by raising prices, good. Let people buy from free countries if they want to avoid the rightful tarriffs. Or just embargo Red China altogether.
The west had strict trade restrictions against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact, and they fell. There is "free" trade with Communist China, and it enables the communist regime to survive as a communist oppressor.
So... And just TWAT, exactly, hath The Wrath of The Donald's trade wars (or Biden's for that matter) DONE lately, for the Turkish minority groups, Mongolians, Tibetans, or religious groups?
I heard that some residents of Nebraska drove too fast, ogled women in and offensive manner, and committed MURDER, even, too!!! NUKING THE ENTIRE STATE of Nebraska would then be a GOOD thing to do, if it’s done for humanitarian reasons!
Well, the city of San Francisco allows people to shit and piss all over sidewalks for humanitarian reasons. So there's that.
Which gives a whole new meaning to ‘street tacos’ in SQRLSY’s case.
The tariffs were done in response to anti free market acts by China. Something Eric ignores. Wrote about it below. Trump was actually very clear on the purpose of the China specific tariffs in his speeches and interviews. Eric just ignores this.
Now do all the other countries products that Trump levied taxes on. All of the EU, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Canada...
Something both you and Boehm ignore.
Which one specifically do you want me to address?
I'm against protectionist tariffs. But ill leave this here.
https://www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/time-trump-make-good-his-zero-tariffs-offer
Trump argues for no global tariffs. Those countries you mention did not agree to it.
Are you pretending the EU does not engage in extensive anti-trade measures?
Nope. But Im a USA citizen. If the EU wants to steal from their "citizens" well thats there deal.
But mostly I'm against one man setting tax rates in clear violation of the Constitution.
Ah, you're just dishonest, got it. You're effectively arguing that if you call a tail a leg a dog now has five legs or that just because you're buying stolen merchandise for cheap it's a good thing.
If we were imposing tariffs to offset our minimum wage and mandatory benefits I can understand why they would be wrong but the reasons here are different so you ignore that.
China, as mentioned below, is stealing from US citizens through corporate theft increasing security costs, domestic prices, etc.
Are you fine with that?
"If you disagree with tariffs then you actually support theft!"
Liberal thinking from a tyrannical conservative. God you're dumb.
It's not that one man at fault, it's Congress for enacting statutes that say the tariff is so much unless the president lowers it. The president isn't instituting a tax, he's only failing to make an exception to one.
Somebody remind me what we get from Australia besides Koala skin hats. Oh yes, baby kangaroo meat.
Do you come from the land down under
Where women glow and men plunder....
I’m sure Boehm furiously masturbated while writing this drivel.
AH! So if their motives are altruistic, that makes everything OK.
Who are you to impose your value judgments by government fiat rather than by persuasion? If you really think that the Chinese government is evil (and I do not disagree with your decision), convince consumers to voluntarily boycott their goods and you will achieve precisely the same economic penalty on China.
If consumers choose cheaper Chinese goods buttressed by stealing from other consumers or producers in country, is that a choice that is theirs to make?
An example I've used before.
Mob robs shipping trucks. Sells goods at half price retail. Should stopping the theft be paid for with taxes to police and judiciary? Or should we ignore why the goods are cheaper because someone else got something cheaper? It is the same exact scenario. Theft by one entity being ignored.
Why in the world would you increase taxes on stolen goods rather than preventing the crime to begin with? God you're dumb.
Because in this case the analogous way to prevent the crime would be to conquer China. Sometimes the direct cure is too dangerous.
"Conquering China is the only way to stop crime!"
God you're dumb too. Possibly dumber.
It's NEVER okay to impose punitive tariffs. If another country is so bad that you want to punish them the only option is to ban trade with them up to and including a military blockade. Tariffs not only fail to achieve the goals claimed for them, they frequently backfire by being counterproductive in punishing the enemy. And almost always they only punish your own people in the process. Bans and blockades almost never work either, but halfway measures are even more stupid in every way possible.
But if you blockade them, they're allowed to kill you in response. Literally.
So the alternative is to just put up with China’s bullshit?
No.
Tariffs fail both for humanitarian reasons and for national greatness reasons. Trump couldn't give two wieners about genocide.
Instead, Trump is an anti-market idiot.
Tariffs on China harm the US, not China. They just stop buying our products and sell to countries without stupid trade policies. Oh and they cause inflation.
which were directly paid by American importers and consumers
Well, that's one way to tell readers that you don't understand the topic.
Oh, PLEASE explain to us, Genius One, WHO does pay? Does ANYONE pay for trade wars?
Ass for MEEE?
I blame it all on robotic foreigners! We need to start taking a close look at all those “Made in America” factory-produced goodies, and start asking, “Was this made by an American robot, or a foreigner robot?” Good jobs for good AMERICAN robots, I say! Democrat robots, republican robots, it doesn’t matter… They’re not allowed to vote, anyway! And if we can’t find enough good AMERICAN robots, then we need to start building everything by hand, using only our hands and our teeth, and wood, rocks, and mud! THAT will bring our jerbs back!
Boehm remains quite ignorant on the issue. He intentionally ignores all other market factors to focus on his one topic. It is a very myopic analysis.
It's a very leftist analysis in that it uses either a post modernist or Alinsky tactic of isolating a component then creating a grossly distorted narrative around that component alone as if all others don't exist to get to a pre-determined narrative supporting conclusion.
Actually it shows that the author DOES understand. Tariffs are taxes paid by Americans.
A portion of the tariff might get passed along to the consumer. Like all taxes eventually. Is this the only tax you're against?
Yes indeed we do. But it ended up being more revenue allowing taxes to be cut for the top 1%.
Moved, had it in the wrong spot.
Not all “trade wars” are the same. Tariffs can be protectionist or retaliatory. Eric remains ignorant in basic global market realities. Going through one example.
China currently participates in corporate theft. The companies in China responsible do so at the behest of the government. China also manipulates markets by pegging their currency and implementing their own tariffs and controlled imports. All of these things are anti free market actions meant to hamper global trade. Just IP and corporate theft from China alone is in 600B a year, effecting 1 in 5 US businesses.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-stole-their-ip-within-the-last-year-cnbc.html
This theft not only causes loss on sales, but increases domestic costs as companies move money from R&D and manufacturing to add in money for security. Security costs raise the costs of consumer goods. This is the same exact effect Eric cries about regarding tariffs but always ignores.
When Trump raised tariffs in China in response to this, it was done so to encourage China to crack down on these anti free market actions. Actions that cost US companies far more money than the cost of the tariffs. The theft costs dwarfed tariff costs. Eric again ignores this. These tariffs actually caused China go fix the theft happening in their country.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/five-things-to-know-about-chinas-promised-crackdown-on-intellectual-property-theft-2019-11-25
So in summary. Eric focuses on one solitary aspect of cost while ignoring the much larger costs incurred by anti free market actions and ignores the purpose of the tariffs to encourage China to be MORE free market.
Eric has a pet issue in which he ignores the reality of other costs to markets that he wants to ignore. Likely at the behest of his pro China masters but also through his sheer ignorance and understanding of international arguments.
Consumers would also save money if police didn’t crack down on thieves selling goods they stole at cheaper prices. But not doing so again reduces industrial production and raises costs due to addition of security costs. Eric remains pretty sophomoric on this topic.
I'll go a step further and use an entirely domestic example to explain what Eric and the "all tariffs are always bad" crowd as to how they are wrong.
Think of tariffs as normal domestic police crack downs.
We have seen blue states basically ignore retail theft. California won't arrest unless a single theft incident is over 1500. This has led to an explosion of retail theft, estimated at nearly 80 to 100B a year. This has caused retailers to pull items off shelves, increase security, etc. Retailers like Target have also increased prices to consumers due to this theft to try and recoup retail theft losses. The tariffs are always bad crowd are exactly the same as the leftists calling for no reaction to the open and rampant theft. Despite the increase costs to the consumers in the market.
In a global trade setting there are eonly a few options to address the theft of a global market. Tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, and war. Tariffs are actually the least costly means to address it. In the shoplifting case police and judicial costs to arrest thieves and discourage theft are less than the cost of the rampant theft. Yet if we applies Erics belief in tariffs globally, he is no better than the cities and states ignoring the theft issue which naturally causes a raising of consumer prices in the markets.
You raise a lot of good points.
But did the tariffs work to curtail IP theft in China? I note you cited an article where they promised to crack down in 2019, but it seems either that never happened or was ineffective.
While I agree that the costs of theft may be greater than the costs of the tariffs, it seems we now pay both?
I never trust China. But the only reason they agreed to even give the appearance was due to the targeted tariffs.
I would prefer tariffs be targeted not as a government funding mechanism but dedicated to the domestic producer loss from the foreign theft. Tie it directly to the issue.
I respectfully disagree not because I think China is blameless or unworthy of punishment but because this is not a necessary function of government. A voluntary boycott by consumers of chinese goods could accomplish precisely the same economic penalty on chinese manufacturers and their government. The voluntary boycott can be enacted through persuasion of consumers.
Government policies inevitably distort markets in ways that go beyond any one policy goal. Voluntary actions in the market - including boycotts - have far fewer unintended consequences. Until someone makes the case for why the nongovernmental option is unviable, you can't rebut the default position that all (okay, most) tariffs are evil.
A voluntary boycott by consumers of chinese goods could accomplish precisely the same economic penalty on chinese manufacturers and their government. The voluntary boycott can be enacted through persuasion of consumers.
And this is where naivete sets in.
Chinese goods are cheaper due to lower R&D. Why pay for it if you can steal it. But because it is cheaper people such as yourself ignore and actually fund the damage to those who the IP is stolen from. Long term this discourages future R&D, dedicates money to security away from consumer price reductions etc.
Youre trading a short term benefit while ignoring the theft and long term effects while subsidizing entities openly committing theft. That is not a choice for YOU to make as the choice supports a violation of the NAP.
Your point is the same as the left not wanting to arrest shop lifters. You benefit at the expense of someone else. That is not a free market.
People all over the world steal. Especially in the US. Better to not get all high and mighty and racist about the Chinese. It generalizes and distracts from the issue at hand. Most IP is stolen because it is "given" to the Chinese in hopes of an enormous payoff. Of course that doesn't come, but it doesn't come in many places, not just China.
Yes, boycotts could accomplish the same thing. By the same token, anti-crime enforcement isn’t a necessary function, because the same could be accomplished by people’s simply not committing crimes.
But I see their point: The marginal cost of enforcement against a petty crime is greater than the loss from the crime itself. It's the same way voting in an election is useless because the time and trouble of anyone's vote is more than could be gained by its influence on election results.
All tariffs are bad. Períod. The idea is to punish China but it is US consumers and businesses that get punished.
Nope.
You will never stop communists from stealing intellectual property with tariffs or trade deals. There is only one way to stop intellectual theft - make the seller of stolen IP pay royalties to the owner of the IP.
This hits American companies benefiting from Chinese theft right where it hurts - on the bottom line. If they refuse to pay royalties, civil courts may, and will, compel not merely compensatory damages, but punitive ones as well. Triple damages will quickly change the minds of stolen IP profiteers.
Any company, US, EU or Asian that attempts to sell stolen IP into the US will either pony up or cease selling in the US.
This is a demand problem, not a supply problem.
Good to see an article cover what each candidate is proposing then compare it to the current situation under Biden (D).
That's always the problem with Republicans. All they can do is point to Democrats and say that they're worse.
Because they are.
Fuck Donald Trump and Joe Biden's unconstitutionally executive order taxes. No Taxation without Representation.
Do you prefer being taxxed by China through their corporate theft and market manipulations?
Nope, I prefer USA legislators passing laws that set tax rates. You know just like our founders preferred, hence the whole enshrining it in our constitution.
The founders funded government on tariffs… lol.
Maybe read some historical texts?
>> I prefer USA legislators passing laws
dude that's not what Congress is for anymore.
"Biden is aging naturally." So was Justice Ginsburg.
Biden aged naturally decades ago. He’s now decomposing.
He's nearly decomposed at this point.
He lost his composure some time ago.
The decomposition of Joe Biden.
"Decomposing composers" Monty Python.
Still a far more successful President than we have seen in a long time. Read the facts and keep the GQP of it all out of it.
Pants pooping methuselah can’t even finished a paragraph without going half retard. Can’t put on a jacket. Climbing stairs for him is like summiting Mt. Everest.
Biden has only succeeded at wrecking the country and sending us headlong towards WW3. A real democrat success story.
I'm not too crazy about taxation with representation either.
Hello,
It's important to recognize the diversity of opinions on immigration and the complexity of the issues involved. Constructive discussions about immigration policies often involve a nuanced understanding of the economic, social, legal, and humanitarian dimensions of the matter.
I don't think you will get that as nuance doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or in a sound bit.
If what you mean by "recognize" is to abandon logic, facts and actual outcomes, then no, it's not important. There is one and only one optimum policy on immigration regardless of the complexity of the issues involved. Uncertainty may drive disagreement, but it doesn't mean that all of the diverse opinions are correct. What is essential in formulating immigration policy to first decide what the goal or goals are. Then one must determine (if considering more than one goal) whether the goals are achievable with any policy and whether the goals are even consistent with each other. So far NONE of those essential steps have been taken. What we have now is a catastrophic failure due to the absence of any realistic goal and a set of vague slogans driven by rhetorical and magical thinking.
More AI bullshit, even if written by a meat sack.
More like Artificial Stupidity. Since we’re talking about Boehm.
Thanks for this article. That fact is that Trump was dumb as a stump on trade. He said "trade wars are easy to win", except they are not. China response was a tariff on soybeans that hurt American farmers and resulted in Trump's farmer welfare program to compensate. Too many people are scared that Trump will become a dictator and not enough are scared that he is incompetent.
"Too many people are scared that Trump will become a dictator and not enough are scared that he is incompetent."
You win the comments.
You realize China's response is linked to just above right?
The Trump Cult is opposed to welfare except if it is for themselves. The Wefare that Trump doled out to farmers who lost markets is a great example. Who wouldn't prefer being on such a generous dole to actually working? And Trump's Welfare For Farmers has made Iowa a Republican state. Buying votes. Very Libertarian.
"Buying votes. Very Libertarian."
Which Libertarian did this?
China response was a tariff on soybeans that hurt American farmers
China's tariffs hurt Americans, but American tariffs don't hurt China?
Make up your minds.
I see that like Trump you think trade wars are simple. The fact is we need Chinese steel and simple have to pay more. The Chinese on the other hand, being authoritarian, can make decisions simply and move to other suppliers. They targeted products that were designed to hurt American farmers, a traditional Republican group. China is now buying soybean and corn from South America.
Both China and America maybe hurt by tariffs but the impact here is bigger than in China.
I see that like most democrats, you’re not capable of understanding these things, nor have any real grasp of economics. You’re incapable of understanding the damage and theft from China’s practices.
Perhaps you should avoid complex subjects like this one. It’s clearly beyond you.
For politicians, incompetence is not a bug, it's a feature.
A lot of you democrats are scared about a lot of stupid things not reflected in reality. That’s why you like this article. You’re as dumb as Boehm.
I had no idea there was going to be another debate.
Did I miss anything?
Apparently not.
I think I was watching a couple Mark Dice videos at the time.
"Nikki Haley is corrupt. This is a woman who would send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house." was a highlight
Desantis and Ramaswamy were pretty good. Haley sucked and made herself more unlikable. Christie is a fat aggressive fuckstick who basically hates everything the audience there wants.
It's been 50+ years since we opened up to China. Can anyone point to an explosion (or even evidence of) liberalism over there?
I worked with a guy who grew up in China. He's probably about 60 years old now. He had some interesting stories to tell. I wouldn't want to live in China, but if I had to, I'd take today's China over 50+ years ago China. Not even close.
Life is better now there than under Mao. We don't appreciate how horrible he was.
It's the great libertarian fallacy. It's undeniably true that a country can't be socially free with a totalitarian economy. However, the opposite is not true. A police state can be quite economically free. Singapore is a prime example. Most libertarians appear not to know anything about Singapore, they mention it.
Data trumps theory every time.
'Nikki Haley says "Trump was good on trade." What?'
Dude, learn to Mercantilist.
bro "Trump's Trade War" is the least of issues in 2024
Yes, but it’s something Boehm can jack off to.
What's another name for a cluster of desperate politicians? Perhaps "gaggle" would suit this reality teevee show. We need to make this more entertaining - perhaps by watching Trump campaigning from his prison cell and, eventually, signing executive orders there. There could be a twenty-four seven camera feed. We could call it "White House Albion!"
So china frauds their contract but it's all Trumps fault???
Surely making importers tax-exempt will fix the trade deficit! /s
That apparently doesn't matter since according to Stossel (the dumbest thing I've ever read from him) printing useless $ will fix it. Not as-if useless $ will effect anyone here... Right, right?? /s
What irks me most about US trade policy is that, for a very long time, we've had no statutory scheme reflecting the actual details of national trade policy. It's nearly all executive action now, and some of it is even deferred to unelected, not-even-national bodies passing judgment on the details. Congress has enacted statutes, but they all include exceptions allowing reductions in barriers contingent on executive determinations or even theoretically impartially judged facts. Congress has made the country very protectionist, leaving us at the mercy of the executive branch to punch loopholes of freedom in this overall picture.
It's just one more example of the demosclerosis we have in the USA, and probably many other countries, that makes democratic-republican reform nearly hopeless.
The only thing Chris Christy is right about, is that "all you can eat" buffets don't want him anywhere near them.
Christie is correct. All tRumpy did was put Tariffs on goods being imported from China, which consists of most consumer goods that American Tax Payers purchase.
As such the American Tax payer, paid the Tariff which was just another TAX.
tRumpy then dropped taxes for his buddies in the top 1%.
So at the end of the day the average American Taxpayer was bent over to take in the a.........
tRumpy did make sure daughter Ivanka got some patents and he also made money on investments in China.
You’re pretty fucking stupid, aren’t you? Just another idiot Marxist.
Christie will always be the 800 pound moron in whatever room he's in (I have nothing against gorillas).