Americans' Support for Tariffs Plummets When They See Prices Rise
A new poll challenges the protectionist narrative currently dominating both sides of the political aisle.

In the ongoing debate over America's trade policy, politicians and pundits often claim that the public supports tariffs and other protectionist measures, such as those given to us by the Trump and Biden administrations. A new Cato Institute poll, however, reveals a more complex picture: Americans might like the idea of tariffs and "Buy American" policies, but their support shrinks when confronted with higher prices and other negative consequences.
This disconnect—between abstract preferences and real-world actions with concrete downsides—challenges the protectionist narrative currently dominating both sides of the political aisle.
The survey, conducted by YouGov, involves 2,000 Americans. The beauty is that it does two things well. It first asks people how they feel about a particular policy. It then asks them again in light of the policy's actual costs and consequences, as predicted by solid research. Looking at the different answers to the two questions reveals Americans' sentiments about an issue much better than most ordinary polls can do.
Economists understand that tariffs ultimately raise the prices of goods they are applied to. Tariffs are a tax on imported goods. This tax is paid by consumers. Americans must shoulder the additional cost for the same imported goods or pay higher prices for domestically made substitutes (whose quality might also deteriorate because their producers are shielded from foreign competition).
The poll reveals just how much Americans' initial support for protectionist measures crumbles when faced with the idea of higher prices. For example, when asked if they support tariffs on imported blue jeans, 62 percent initially favor such measures to boost domestic production and employment. However, a mere $10 price increase due to these tariffs flips the majority to oppose them. When the price hike reaches $50, a staggering 87 percent oppose the tariffs.
This price sensitivity extends also to the "Buy American" sentiment. Although 75 percent of Americans claim to prefer domestic products when all else is equal, 51 percent would choose a cheaper foreign-made item of similar quality. Even more tellingly, 70 percent wouldn't pay even a $10 premium for an American-made frying pan, and 76 percent intentionally didn't purchase a U.S.-made product in the week prior to the survey.
These findings expose a critical flaw in the argument for protectionist policies: While Americans may nod approvingly at the abstract notion of supporting domestic industries, they vote with their wallets for the most affordable goods, regardless of origin.
A reality check is crucial as policymakers on both sides of the aisle continue to parrot protectionist rhetoric and peddle protectionist policies. The Trump-era tariffs, largely maintained by the Biden administration, were sold to the public as a way to bring back manufacturing jobs and counter China's economic influence. But this poll suggests that once Americans feel the pinch of higher prices, support for tariffs will likely plummet.
The poll reveals two other truths that populist politicians would prefer to ignore. First, most Americans aren't as obsessed with trade issues as politicians are. In fact, only 1 percent of Americans consider trade a top priority. Second, 66 percent believe that global trade benefits the U.S. economy, and 58 percent rightly credit it with raising their standard of living. In fact, 63 percent favor increasing U.S. trade engagement.
So, what's the way forward? First, we need honest and clear communication about the tradeoffs involved in trade policy. Policymakers should acknowledge that protectionist measures lead to higher consumer prices. The burden should be on them to persuade us that any benefits to specific industries are worth it.
Second, if the goal is to support American workers and industries, we should explore alternatives that don't directly raise consumer prices. This could include deregulation of the manufacturing sector, and capital gains tax reform to boost investment at home and American productivity—without resorting to trade barriers.
Third, we need better public education on trade issues. The more Americans understand the complexities of global trade and its impact on their daily lives, the better equipped they'll be to evaluate policy proposals and hold their representatives accountable.
Lastly, policymakers should pay attention to what Americans do, not just what they say. This poll clearly shows that when push comes to shove, Americans prioritize affordable goods over protectionist ideals. Trade policy that ignores this fact is likely to face significant backlash once its effects are felt in the marketplace.
As we navigate the complex waters of global trade in an increasingly interconnected world, it's vital that our policies reflect reality rather than cling to protectionist myths that don't align with Americans' actual behavior and preferences.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
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
In Libertopia there’s no taxes and government is so small a 1% tariff could fund it. I think people would be OK with that.
Very, very few would be OK with that.
You’re correct (winner, winner, chicken dinner!) because in Libertopia, the self-righteous would NOT be allowed to sate their “punishment boners” by punishing those OTHER (bad) people and tribes, just for speaking, dressing, buying, working, and thinking wrongly, or for belonging to the wrong tribe!
Our “punishment boners” MUST be satisfied, dammit!!!
But both of us would be very happy.
And free.
Hey! Count me in! That makes THREE of us now!!! Woooo-Hooo; let’s PARTY!!!
How much revenue can be generated organ harvesting democrats? It’s at least worth a try,
They never asked the question, ‘Would you pay 10% more, and / or buy from a different source, to stick it to China for their own protectionist trade policies and intellectual property theft?’
They never asked the question, ‘Would you SUPPORT FORCING OTHER PEOPLE to pay 10% more, and / or buy from a different source, to stick it to PEOPLE OF THE WRONG TRIBE for their own protectionist trade policies and intellectual property theft, ASS ***I*** chose to vengefully define such things?’
Because you don’t have to ask, you just have to look at people’s buying habits.
The clear answer is no, no they won’t.
Except people did have a supply shift, generally through manufacturing switches to other countries.
And if the first company to offshore manufacturing saw a big loss of market share no other companies would have moved. But the opposite happened, lower prices increased their market share, so the rest offshored as well. You can still get made in America stuff, but it’s a niche market now. If more people bought American made the market would grow and supplant imports, but again, it’s not happening.
There’s absolutely nothing in this calculus that when one offshores, there’s still people who can afford to buy things local or not. Offshore everything, the buying capabilities shrink, because the wages to purchase with have shrunk.
Enter in welfare that keeps the buying power of the consumers stable even though they wouldn’t be able to afford it without.
And nothing in your calculus accounts for the fact that majority of people don’t work in manufacturing, thus their wages are largely unaffected by offshoring. Except that they can choose to buy cheaper imported goods, which they overwhelmingly do choose.
And be sure to never bring up the fact domestic manufacturing is paying up to 80% taxes right now. Hmmmmmmmm…. Maybe that’s the reason no-one wanted to buy domestic anymore.
And Mexico is technically not “offshore.”
Ross Perot campaigned against the “giant sucking sound” of NAFTA sending jobs to Mexico, but it happened anyway. And stuff got cheaper and the USA’s economy boomed (on and off).
Actually the sucking was in the direction of the United States. NAFTA basically destroyed Mexico’s inefficient agricultural sector. Massive numbers of illegal immigrants came to the US to support the agricultural sector here which faced an immediate labor shortage. The same thing had happened during WW2 except that back then it was possible to immigrate to the US from Mexico because there were no numerical quotas on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. There are now 40 million Mexicans in the US. 3/4 are legal permanent residents or dual nationals but 1/4 remain without visa status. If Trump does fulfill his campaign promise to round up the ones without visa status deport them to Mexico, you will see food shortages in the US that rival that of the former Soviet Union. Oh and also a massive increase in the federal government’s budget deficit, fueling inflation.
The good part of this is that the collapse finally helped to end the PRI’s one party rule in Mexico, which had lasted longer than Communist rule in the former Soviet Union. And the agriculture sector in Mexico modernized and is now exporting to everywhere in the world. Mexico now has dozens of free trade agreements and that contributes to its lower unemployment rate — one third lower even than the low unemployment rate in the US. Agriculture exports from the US crashed because of Trump’s trade wars.
The main problems Mexico faces are (1) terrible inequality, with the richest state having seven times the average income of the poorest (In the US the ratio is approximately two, not seven.), and (2) a lack of a rule of law in parts of the country, with cartels operating without limits in much of the country, leading to horrific levels of violent crime. But in other parts of the county that violent crime is absent. Mexico City is safer than most large US cities (you are safer there than in Houston or Dallas!), Campeche (where the oil is) even safer, and Mérida safer than most cities in Canada!
A lot of non-manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas too. Plenty of English speakers in India to answer phones. Hard to tack a tariff on that.
I personally know someone who moved his business’s call center to Israel.
I would argue that Companies made those supply chain shifts, not individuals. The poll asked individuals (not companies) and this is where I think default is correct. Because individuals don’t really care where the item comes from or the supply chain to create the item.
They really love hammering this one single topic while ignoring much bigger issues.
Tariffs are 50B a year, such a small cost compared to corporate taxes, retail theft, regulatory costs, etc. But for Reason, the number of tariff articles makes you think they are the prime driver of costs of goods.
As you mention supply shifts exist and we have seen market switched away from statss like China.
Likewise the IP theft you mention along with security costs to alleviate said theft is 10x the cost of current tariffs. Reason would rather have those costs which are much higher than ever actually try to reduce those costs through tariffs. Ironically China did do a crackdown after Trump issued tariffs for the reason of theft, which then tariffs were removed once action taken.
YES!
Libertarians (used to) expect Reason to defend freedom.
Think “corporate freedom” and you’ll be disappointed less often.
Shit flows down-hill!!! Tax the BeJeebers (or over-regulate) the heck out of the “Ebil KKKorporations” (take away their freedoms), and shit cums out of your and my hide. We can NOT hide from the damages to OUR hides! The Tooth Fairy ain’t payin’ for this crap, and the Mexicans are NOT building “big, beautiful walls” for FREE, for the TrumptatorShit, either!
FOAD, slimy pile of lefty shit.
Yea it’s super weird right? Like, maybe they want products made in America, and they’re super super super super duper pissed about how faggoty wokeness has made doing manufacturing and production in America so unproductive and unprofitable.
“I can make a $3 widget.”
“Yea, I’m going to need you to consider the endangered stinkbug and your lack of black gay female employees.”
“Fine, whatever. Factoring in all your idiot nonsense, the widget is now $30.”
“You know what, I can get that for $2 from Chinese slave labor. So I guess I’ll do that instead.”
But yea, let’s blame that on tariffs. Sure. Whatever Clown World.
Don’t buy shit made by AT, because AT’s labor is SLAVE labor!
(AT and AT’s so-called “mind” have been enslaved by self-righteous hatred of those OTHER (bad) people and tribes, just for speaking, dressing, buying, working, and thinking wrongly, or for belonging to the wrong tribe!)
All tariffs do is make the Chinese widget cost $31, it doesn’t address the root cause high domestic prices. As long as US companies can just demand tarriffs they have no incentive to fight against the actual problem and the end result is people paying $30 for a $2 widget because they have no other choice.
This may be the best explanation of how tariffs work I’ve ever seen.
Minus that ignorance towards the $30 in domestic taxes.
And the no-tariff $2 widget keeps people mollified and uninterested in why the American product costs $30, they continue supporting policies that make them feel good and don’t know the American product stopped existing, and then when the $2 widget keeps breaking, they wonder why they can’t find a better quality widget.
And then the product the guy needed the $2 widget for ceases to have customers, he wonders where his clientele went. But his clientele is broke because they lost their jobs when the $30 American widget maker went bankrupt and so they can’t afford the services of the $2 widget consumer.
And that’s when he starts caring and says “UBI! UBI! UBI!”
Take away the pacifier of tariffs and the owners of American manufacturing will become interested in why their products cost so much to make. People aren’t quite as mollified as you believe, I think. Take a look at California, companies like Uber and Grubhub identified why their prices were going up and voters responded by voting for a policy to reverse it. If Californians can get out of the “feel good” mindset and vote for sound economic policy, then anyone can.
I think you’re wrong here. Mostly because it’s been known for decades.
Uber and GrubHub raising prices is a different economic issue, ponzi-scheme startup investments. It goes something like this:
1. Come up with a great idea for a product or service that everyone wants, but which is too expensive to produce at a price point that people will generally pay for.
2. Convince a bunch of venture capital bros to pour money into your company, ostensibly because the business will definitely start turning a profit “at scale”.
3. Spend the venture capital to provide the product or service at a loss, but grow your company quickly. Expand as fast as you can here, before the bubble breaks!
4. Retail and institutional investors see your company growing like a balloon and jump in. Your customer base is expanding exponentially as you enter new markets. Sure, every new sale is a net loss, but the flood of new money papers over any fundamental problems.
5. Eventually, investor appetite for additional stock runs out. You have a P/E of 100+ (i.e. your business will never earn what it apparently costs to Buy It Now in any living person’s lifetime). You sell all your stock and ride your golden parachute to the Bahamas before everyone realizes that this business model fundamentally makes no sense.
6. The desperate bag holders raise prices on the per-unit unprofitable business to try and make it profitable. Nobody wants the thing at whatever the price is and the company flops.
There’s all kinds of crazy shit being proposed…tariffs, price controls on groceries, nationwide rent control, a 24 percent unrealized gains tax on the wealthy, Allowing Trumps tax cuts to expire. Presto …we’re Argentina now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/harris-ties-her-own-hands-with-400-000-tax-pledge/ar-AA1oQddF
YES!
Libertarians for higher taxes and more expensive stuff?
I’d be fine with higher consumption taxes IF it meant the elimination of the immoral income tax.
More expensive stuff will naturally be a byproduct of making “cheep” stuff here instead of overseas and it behooves the people arguing for onshoring to acknowledge that.
Why are income taxes immoral? I see nothing in the Bible that prohibits one.
Libertarians for exterminating Marxism?
Remember when libertarians were for exterminating Marxists and Nazis?
New headline: Faced With False Equivalences, Poll Respondents Give Answer Pollsters are Looking For
Seriously. it’s not just “costs more” and we all know it. It’s costs less and causes you to have a lower salary. Or cost less because your tax dollars have to subsidize the shipping. Or costs less because of their currency manipulation, so your lower salary, higher expenses at home, and higher taxes also get to subsidize their citizens’ new wealth.
The free market is only a free market when everyone respects the same rules.
THIS is why the entire USA (minus the Californicated ones) needs to TARIFF THE HELL out of Californicated products, which are produced by slave labor!
Sorta already happening with the FDIC bailout of the wealthy cash deposits over 250k in Silicon Valley Bank. Bailouts for thebestofus. Higher FDIC rates for therestofus.
Shop at the Mexican or Asian grocers. Also, you can buy antibiotics over the counter. Different rules, even within the U.S.
The Constitution explicitly prohibits tariffs on anything exported from any state.
New headline: Faced With False Equivalences, Poll Respondents Give Answer Pollsters are Looking For
I think this headline can be recycled for most polls.
It’s good for the environment!
CCPs wealth (ultimately). All wealth is managed through the party.
Attention, American voters: ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE END CONSUMERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES. There are no tariffs paid by exporters. There are no taxes on corporations. There are no taxes on businesses. All taxes are passed on to the end consumer. They are added to the prices you pay. ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE END CONSUMERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES.
Weird how this is solely screamed about tariffs and not corporate taxes, regulatory costs, costs added from theft, shop lifting costs, etc.
Why focus on the paper cut on your toe when your leg is being cut off?
Don’t forget our absurd “civil justice” system that forces businesses to go to enormous expense to cover their asses from virtually unlimited liability.
“First, we kill all the lawyers.”
“First, we kill all the lawyers.”
First draft of a policy proposal within The Lincoln Project, before someone spoke up and said that not everyone would read it with the obviously implied “Trump” in front of “lawyers”?
Who, exactly, would confuse Donald Trump with a lawyer?
The Biden/Harris regime want to raise the corporate tax from 21 percent to 28 percent. Every penny of which will be paid by the consumer. Wonder if Cato will do a poll asking people how they feel about that.
That’s why they need the price controls.
The proposal is price controls on rent and groceries. So far…..
Like a cancerous tumor, the democrats won’t stop on their own.
Look how good food price controls did for Venezuela when Chavez did that.
Man, life here could be that good.
MAGA: The Biden/Harris Administration is responsible for inflation in housing and food!
MAGA: The Biden/Harris Administration is wrong to do anything to address inflation in housing and food!
Lol, you know the answer to that.
I’m surprised Sarc isn’t here raving about ‘Trump’s tariffs’. Maybe he found a $20 bill on the street and bought a gallon of bottom shelf liquor.
Because tariffs are the worst of all.
Even worse, for progressives, corporate and business taxes often hit middle and lower income people harder, in the form of higher prices and lower wages. So much for “tax the evil corporations!”
Wait a minute. Nobody making less than 400k pays taxes.
I would dearly LOVE to see a short poll of thousands of people:
1) Would you just absolutely LOVE to punish all of the BAD AND WRONG people, and make them PAY OUT OF THEIR ASSES, for the shit that they need for them to live and prosper?
2) Are you willing to have one of your arms or legs chopped off by and ever-growing Government Almighty, in order to punish the BAD AND WRONG people?
However, a mere $10 price increase due to these tariffs flips the majority to oppose them.
Jeans are about $20 so getting a 50% tax would indeed piss off a lot of people.
Trump proposed 25%, which is $4.
Use real costs in your shitty polls.
Men’s jeans are $20. Women’s jeans start at $100. Not sure why women still put up with this. I’m old enough to remember when feminists complained about it.
Most women’s clothing plus makeup, hair care, shoes, etc. costs more. It’s almost like they want to make themselves look nice, no matter the cost.
Men also won’t put up with a lot of bullshit from clothing designers. Most men will also refuse to wear uncomfortable shoes. Whereas women will torture themselves for the right look or to virtue signal trendy fashions.
20 dollars? Do you even Bidenflation?
501’s are starting at 55 bucks on sale. (79 bucks list price)
Amazon has them for $47 today.
Levis will charge what buyers are willing to pay. Free markets.
And that is true of all products. Inflation is the result of people with lots of cash being willing to pay higher prices. What is new today is that the same people whine about it all the time, and that the Trump crowd wants to weaponize it, even though Trump’s policies will make it far worse.
Here is the problem: The poll’s data actually disagrees with what Mrs de Rugy says. And this is why we can’t have nice things.
In the poll, a majority of Americans (58%) were WILLING to pay $5 more for jeans made in another country if it would boost American jobs and production. That compares will to the number of people supporting the tariff if price is not mentioned (62%). It is only when that price increases to $10 or more that a majority of Americans is against the added costs.
So this tells us that Americans by and large do understand that tariffs increase the price of goods, and they are willing to support those costs IF they aren’t to high.
I am against tariffs but if we are going to eliminate them, it is going to be because people stop supporting them. As we see in this poll, our politicians get away with tariffs BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS THEM, even knowing that it increases prices. This runs completely counter to the point that Ms de Rugy tries to make.
Kamala’s price controls will stop the price hike. Problem solved comrade!
I look forward to the empty shelves in grocery stores after the price controls kick in.
“As long as there are no tariffs, reluctantly and strategically…” – Reason
Time again for my pet peeve.
The long lines at gas stations during the Arab embargo did not exist until the day after the federal government instituted price controls.
Sure gas was more expensive, but it was readily available.
And pay workers more, unless those greedy kulaks lay everyone off.
I can’t wait to hear her explain it off the teleprompter.
Prices rise because things cost more. Things cost more because prices rise. I will control this by ??? than profit.
Harris and Warren – big grocery is price gorging. Sure.
This disconnect—between abstract preferences and real-world actions with concrete downsides—challenges the protectionist narrative currently dominating both sides of the political aisle.
Abstract preferences are all that exist once companies have shut down part of their domestic supply chain in order to outsource overseas. The workers who used to work there do not have good employment options. If they are in one of those Rust Belt towns where the whole town died and people cannot even sell their house to escape, then hello overdoses. And you assholes want to poll people to find out whether shit is cheaper at WalMart and how happy they are solely as consumers? It’s bullshit and FU.
I despise this notion that the US is engaging in free trade or protectionism when what is happening with PERMANENT current account deficits is not trade at all. At the aggregate level, it is exporting CURRENCY – instead of goods – for the purpose of bolstering a reserve currency status. Those people who used to work in goods exporting industries – where trade deficits and currency rates used to fluctuate to signal global competitiveness – no longer can do that in the US. The US is the reserve currency supplier. China/Germany/Japan are the permanent export goods supplier. The US does finance and buys/sells real estate and stocks. China/Germany/Japan make shit and sell it.
This isn’t comparative advantage. It is managed trade with cronyist protectionism all around. None of that can change. Or at least it hasn’t changed one iota for many many decades now. Germany/China/Japan can have their societies invest in the sort of infrastructure that supports goods exports – the US/UK cannot. Anyone who does so in the US must hedge their entire balance sheet – a bit of a bribe to the FIRE sector. The US/UK can only invest in the sort of infrastructure that greases the FIRE sector.
Economics as a discipline has been corrupt for well over a century. The discipline now – and everyone in it – is now autistic as well.
This is too simplistic. The US is still one of the largest manufacturers in the world. We produce more than just “real estate and stock”. Our production of software and services is still the highest in the world. Though you are correct that finance is a large cancer in the system.
The cantillon effect predicts exactly what we see in the US economy- the dominance of the finance sector, exporting of jobs and slow growth of wages. 40 years ago, it was expected that telegraphed moves by the Fed could “price in” the cantillon effect. However, with QE, we have a constant growth in money supply, and it is performed in opaque ways that largely benefit large banks and corporations.
Free trade is great, but it responds to price signals. And in an inflationary economy, that just means its easier to amplify and benefit from cantillon effects.
I had to look it up…
The Cantillon Effect states that the first recipient of the new supply of money has an arbitrage opportunity; they can spend money before prices go up. The new fiat money is created at almost zero cost and given to specific parties, usually banks.
Yes, the cantillon effect is often dismissed by Keynesians because they feel that things are priced in. As if Billy Blue Collar wakes up in the morning, watches the Fed report and says, “Well, they’ve lowered interest rates, I should start charging 2% more for the next AC Repair.” It’s kinda hilarious that they can speak about Animal Spirits and momentum out of one side of their mouth, while assuming perfect information for people out the other side.
The US is still one of the largest manufacturers in the world.
Don’t let facts get in the way of the narrative, which is that we need to bring home manufacturing.
Much of what we call international trade is simply an internal (meaning inside a multinational) supply chain. Stuff that goes from one division to another within a company that goes from the US to eg Canada/Mexico and then comes back to the US in different form. There is no arms length transaction with others, pricing is near irrelevant because it is simply an accounting transaction not an economic one, etc. it’s not really trade in a real sense. It’s simply organized production on a bigger scale
There is a comparative advantage decision when the company decides what to make where. But there is no Ricardian England v Portugal free trade notion
What we call free trade agreements – and in particular multilateral ones – are in truth simply protecting a multinational type organization at the expense of smaller producers without global internal supply chains
As a % of GDP, US is tied for the lowest (with Canada) in the OECD at 11.5%. Next tier up would be UK/NZ/AU at 12.5%. UK is the other permanent reserve currency that destroyed its manufacturing in the 19th century. The other three are heavily commodity based. All are the Anglosphere.
Next tier up would be Chile, Denmark, France, Greece, Netherlands, Spain at 15% or so.
The other end of OECD are countries that are TOO dependent on manufacturing. That tend to rely on structural trade surpluses – Germany, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. at the 22-24% level.
Obviously there are cultural differences at work here. But overwhelmingly the differences are structural. Countries that distort things like their education system, their transport infrastructure, their openness to imports, etc are countries that CAN’T really change their development path. They can only take the path that they know and already rely on.
The problem is not that mfg is good or bad. It is that the US is consistently ignoring the distortions we impose on ourselves and simply assuming that that is the only possible approach. One example would be emphasizing apprenticeships as an alternative in K-12 education rather than two-tracking people into burger flipper or go to 4 year college. Or letting large parts of the country let their transport infrastructure decay.
It’s easy to be one of the largest manufacturers when you have one of the highest population count.
However, there’s that thing called a trade deficit that demonstrates we aren’t manufacturing enough to export.
Does the grocery store buy anything from you? No? Then you have a massive trade deficit with the grocery store. See how worse off you are for it? Terrible, isn’t it?
The US isn’t a grocery store you moron. And it has a shitty future if that is the future of employment or ‘production’.
Further when you pay for stuff at the grocery store, you are entirely dependent on the domestic FIRE sector adjusting demand for stuff via adjustments in the price of money. US money has a monopoly within the US. International trade does not have a monopoly anywhere. Currencies have to compete for a reserve currency role and that is what is being protected when the US/UK are persistently serving as the reserve currency (meaning perpetual deficits without a declining currency to self-correct deficits).
Goddamn you are a stupid drunken fuck. You don’t understand anything about economics. Your analogy is shit.
“a trade deficit that demonstrates we aren’t manufacturing enough to export.”
It doesn’t necessarily mean that. It just means that we export more currency than goods. That can be good or bad. Let’s say I have a business where I make $1 Million a year. I send $200k over seas to buy new equipment, and as a result my business can manufacture and earn $2 Million a year.
The trade deficit is one-sided. It is obsessed with currency, when that currency leaving our country brought in something of value in return. And, inflation aside, the US is really really good at taking capital equipment and turning it into wealth.
I send $200k over seas to buy new equipment, and as a result my business can manufacture and earn $2 Million a year.
Not only that, but that $200k is going to come back because it’s US currency. Quite often that happens in the form of investing in American companies. We get stuff for our dollars, which then come back as capital investment. Seems like a win-win to me.
Just for once I’d like to see one of these articles address why it is that this stuff is cheaper to import. There’s this ludicrous assumption that it’s just some sort of natural comparative advantage situation.
We place enormous costs on domestic production that are akin to tariffs that foreign competitors do not. Add in the willingness to use slave labor abroad and voila, that TV from China is soooooo much cheaper.
New article headline: “The libertarian case for domestic regulation and foreign slave labor.”
I’d like to see information that distinguishes real trade from intracompany accounting ‘trade’. I suspect a lot of foreign trade is just stuff moving back and forth inside a single multinational.
Reason has always advocated importing foreign slaves.
There’s this ludicrous assumption that it’s just some sort of natural comparative advantage situation.
Why must comparative advantage the “natural”? Are you going to say that our free enterprise economy doesn’t give us a comparative advantage over a command economy because it’s not “natural”?
He’s saying we have no advantage because of over regulation, over taxation, and excessive cost of legal labor via cost of education and over-regulated housing.
All of which drives up the cost of domestic manufacturing and makes it cheaper to operate overseas because those countries don’t care about environment, consumer protection, and treat their population as slaves and don’t care if they live in homes with indoor plumbing and electricity.
He’s saying that regulation, taxation etc doesn’t count as comparative advantage (or disadvantage) because it isn’t “natural.”
I’m saying that that’s a stupid way to move the goalposts because governments do indeed create comparative advantages and disadvantages. Doesn’t matter if it’s not “natural.”
I think he’s saying the comparative advantage is a fairy tale that doesn’t actually exist precisely because our government regulations, wage and tax laws completely obliterate it.
I may be wrong in my I understanding though.
No, he’s adding the word “natural” to the definition of comparative advantage so as to not include government regulations in order to claim China doesn’t have one.
We have a command economy too.
Do you even Commerce Clause bro?
No, we do not. The Soviet Union had a command economy. Central planners told people what to produce, how much to produce, where to send it, and how much to charge for it. We have a market economy where people decide on their own what to produce, where to send it, and how much to charge for it. Our government does it’s best to fuck it up with regulations, but regulations are not the same as a command economy.
That’s about as ignorant as when someone like Bernie Sanders says Sweden is socialist, when they’re capitalist with social programs.
Don’t be a Bernie.
Should have been more precise in my language: “We have a semi-command economy”.
Granted in some sectors it’s not all 4 at once, but The government absolutely regulates massive (maybe a bit hyperbolic) amounts of our economy down to “what to produce, how much to produce, where to send it, and how much to charge for it.” and has since at least WW2. Thanks a lot Wickard, Nebbia, etc. (seriously, are there any decisions from the 30’s/40’s that aren’t horrible?).
Artfully retracted.
So laws against slavery create comparative disadvantage. And can be ignored as long as we free trade with countries that use slavery. We don’t need to import the slaves since we can import the stuff that slaves produce.
With no friction cost (meaning no tariffs), the country that eliminated slavery can still apply internal pressure to tilt towards slavery. Slavery can remain illegal – but all production of anything by any slave system anywhere else will cease to be economic.
This was the economics behind the Free Soil Party (later Republican – when the Free Soil notion was corrupted by Whig notions). The trade economics behind the saying – A country cannot endure half slave and half free. It will become all one thing or all the other – that kicked off the Lincoln Douglas debates. Where the focus was on making that decision for the federal territories pre-statehood. But turned into Civil War – not because of secession but because the slave South expected the North to fold and restore fugitive act and LeCompton and such. So the federal territories would either accept slavery in the Union so the territories would become Confederate
Free trade religion of globalism simply updates that to world. Maybe not 100% chattel slavery equivalent but tilting the playing field so that everyone nearer the bottom races to the bottom
“…Free trade religion of globalism simply updates that to world. Maybe not 100% chattel slavery equivalent but tilting the playing field so that everyone nearer the bottom races to the bottom…”
JFucked once again proves how much of a lefty ignoramus he is. Remember how post WWII Japanese goods forced a ‘race to the bottom’ for wages, rather than a drastic increase in Japanese wages?
The assholic imbecile JFucked doesn’t.
FOAD, asshole
Only an ignoramus would remember something like that that did not occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages#/media/File:Wage_productivity.jpg
Wages in Japan did increase rather and rather spectacularly so, but that increase stopped about 1990.
It’s obvious that uncontrolled off-shoring is bad. We saw the supply chain problems of the pandemic. We’ve seen middle America hollowed out. It’s also obvious that tariffs are an inadequate response. Yet the author pretends that the equation is as simple as 1+1=2. Sorry, it an equation with multiple solutions, none of them perfect. I like libertarian perspectives on many things, but they’re showing their ideology is not (yet?) up to this set of issues.
“It’s obvious that uncontrolled off-shoring is bad.”
OK then if true, WHO shall do the “controlling”? The free market, AKA your and my economic freedom of choice, or Government Almighty? Do YOU trust Government Almighty to really-actually care about your interests, or merely PRETEND to care about your interests? And use FORCE to do it with?
Tariffs were instituted by Alexander Hamilton in order to pay the debts incurred by the United States in its War of Independence. The only other tax that was possible then was a wealth tax on real estate and in fact such taxes were enacted at times by the federal government. (The last one was in 1861.) But special interests quickly realized that tariffs were a great way to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else and that was the single biggest issue in the United States from about 1825 to about 1935. The notorious Smoot Hawley law should have ended any discussion as it helped to create the Great Depression. But Donald Trump and his supporters appear to have flunked US History.
Comparative advantage for the win. Free trade creates lower prices and spreads prosperity.
The only reason to try to stop globalization is for strategic military reasons, to make sure you can still get the hardware you need to defend the nation when supply lines are cut off.
The US wouldn’t have to worry about hardware to defend the nation. In a real war, nobody here will put up with the shortage of goods that will result from a war economy. And the MAGA folks will surrender to the first dictator who invades. The US would have lost WW2 with our current attitudes.
Real Americans support tariffs by doing what the tariffs are there for; buy from a different source.
At higher cost. I have no problem with “Buy American”, but don’t pretend it’s cost-free.
It’s obvious that uncontrolled off-shoring is bad. We saw the supply chain problems of the pandemic. We’ve seen middle America hollowed out. It’s also obvious that tariffs are an inadequate response. Yet the author pretends that the equation is as simple as 1+1=2. Sorry, it’s an equation with multiple solutions, none of them perfect. I like libertarian perspectives on many things, but they’re showing their ideology is not (yet?) up to this set of issues.
YES!
Good article.
Needz moar Jones Act.
Price controls are great though! /sarc
Sarcasmic doesn’t have a small army of windows-breaking, screaming banshees and Trumpanzees gone apeshit, lusting after the blood of democracy and peaceful transfers of power, stampeding behind him. Somehow, I think that these small details can make a difference…
Also note that One Punch-Drunk She-Male says… A Strong-Man DICKtatorShit is the ONLY thing now, any more, that can PROTECT us from the HORDES of invading illegal sub-humans who will otherwise poison our blood, and then torture, kill, and drink the blood of ALL of our GOOD WHITE CHRISTIAN innocent babies!!! MAN THE BARRICADES!!! TRUMPLE UNDERFOOT, THE ZOMBIE INVASION!!!
Classic example of “We want our free-shit” until “it has to be paid for”. Nothing avoids that ‘bill’ better than offshoring. Only problem is the USA going bankrupt with a destroyed (taxed to death) manufacturing sector because Zero-Tax for foreign products got popular.
You can have low prices or you can have lots of local uncompetitive manufacturing. Given that even the modest levels of inflation we see now are resulting in massive political backlash, I think we know what Americans want.
The only “un-competitive manufacturing” going on is all the US [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] going on. You were just here bragging about getting your ?free? housing money. Who do you think ends up funding that? You ripped off domestic manufacturing/every-market because heaven forbid any importers get stuck with any part of that Nazi-bill you yourself is so proud to STEAL at the end of a Gov-Gun.