No, Trump-Style Tariffs Do Not Grow the Economy
The America of the past grew in spite of tariffs, not because of them.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of the idea that protective tariffs can restore America's economic greatness, based on the interpretation that they fueled our growth in the 19th century and can do so again in the 21st century. This claim isn't just wrong; it's dangerous.
Take recent comments by the conservative pundit Oren Cass, who said "the way America went from colonial backwater to this globe-spanning industrial colossus was not free markets and free trade. It was aggressive protection of our domestic market." Former President Donald Trump echoes similar ideas in his many pronouncements about why, if he's reelected, tariffs will be a big and important tool to revitalize America's economy.
At a superficial level, it's easy to see how someone could think tariffs promote domestic growth. As the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome rightly notes, "the issue [is] a classic case of correlation versus causation: Because tariffs were high during a period of rapid American growth and industrialization, so the argument goes, the former caused the latter."
Yet correlation isn't causation. Tariffs weren't the cause of American prosperity. Not even close.
To begin, economist and trade historian Douglas Irwin points out that "rather than higher tariffs causing higher growth, the relationship could be spurious: land-abundant countries relied on customs duties to raise government revenue and also enjoyed favorable growth prospects, with little link between the two." In 19th-century America—about as land-abundant as it got—the sectors that grew the most were services and agriculture, which were not much protected by tariffs.
In addition, at the time, the United States was the net beneficiary of foreign capital investment, which resulted in the trade deficits that Trump so hates today. This inflow of global capital contributed to a burst of new technology and ideas, all put to the test in a free market.
In other words, despite tariffs on some imported goods, America's 19th-century economy was extremely open.
While Irwin finds that the economic distortions caused by high tariff rates were relatively small, economist Brad DeLong reminds us that the harm (especially on exporting farmers and the domestic producers who had to pay higher prices for imported capital goods) outweighed the benefits to tariff-protected industries.
The noneconomic costs of tariffs were also high. Tariffs fueled corruption and other profit seeking with no real value to society. Contributing to the Cato Institute's Defending Globalization project, Phillip Magness writes that "high tariff protectionism continued to attract rent-seeking interest groups. The sheer extravagance of the public corruption around tariff schedule revisions came to a head in the late 19th century, eventually leading reformers to call for the abandonment of a tariff-based revenue system." (That's how we got the highly distortive income tax.)
Also overlooked by those claiming that 19th-century tariffs made America great is that the country's biggest import at the time was immigrants, who incurred no tariffs. As economists Cecil Bohanon and T. Norman Van Cott argue in "Tariffs, Immigration, and Economic Insulation," weighing the impact of tariffs on economic growth without accounting for massive immigration—which increased from about 200,000 individuals a year in 1865 to more than 1,000,000 in 1910—can only lead to questionable conclusions. They explain that "the impact of high tariffs, clearly an insulating policy, was swamped by free immigration, a quintessential policy of economic openness."
Trump is an avowed restrictionist on both immigration and trade. And so, if a second Trump presidency brings higher tariffs and further immigration restrictions, we won't be as fortunate as were our 19th century forebears.
Making matters worse is that today's economy is vastly different from that of a century ago. Globalization has interconnected markets and supply chains in unprecedented ways. Half of what Americans import are inputs they use to produce goods domestically. Tariffs on these imports increase production costs, making American products less competitive both at home and abroad.
Furthermore, the service sector—comprising industries like technology, finance, and health care—now represents nearly four-fifths of the U.S. economy. These sectors thrive on innovation, skilled labor, and access to global markets, rather than on protectionist policies.
Reimagining tariffs as a panacea for economic woes is not only historically inaccurate but economically unsound. The America of the past grew in spite of tariffs, not because of them. If higher tariffs are imposed today, history will not look kindly on those who imposed them.
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
The America of the past grew in spite of tariffs, not because of them.
So, should be no problem this time?
Reason prefers US tax policy to rig the market in favor of importers from Emperor Xi over US labor.
Adam Smith would disagree.
This is how you know Reason and much of the "free market" Right are simply corporate shills.
It's not like *professional* free market propagandists would be unaware of Adam Smith's argument *in favor* of tariffs to offset local taxes on production and provide a *level* playing field for imports and exports.
See pages 355-366, Wealth of Nations, hteeteepee://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
pg 366
The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it does seem reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.
She has a history of bashing both Trump and Musk and her scholarship is colored by her left of center politics, she received her Economics PhD from The Sorbonne, but I do highly recommend the podcast "Conversations with Tyler" hosted by Tyler Cowen of the Mercatus Center.
Serious question, what is a Trump-style tariff, and how does it differ from an 1980s Reagan tariff?
Careful with that rhetoric questioning a hit piece on the bad orange man. It is comments like these that cause Act Blue donors to go kinetic.
A Trump-style tariff is roughly half of a Biden-style tariff, which makes it very bad for the One True Libertarians.
And both kinds suck. The difference is that far more posters here are up Trump’s arse than are up Biden’s on the subject of tariffs. Not that Trump himself has a fucking clue about the economic effects of tariffs – or indeed, anything macroeconomic.
The difference is that Biden/Harris don’t go around bragging about tariffs and promising more. Whereas it’s central to Trump’s campaign and identity as president. He wants everyone to know he’s the tariff guy. So of course he’s going to get more attention, because he brings it up all the time. If Biden bragged about tariffs and attacked free traders, he’d get attention for it too. But he doesn’t.
No, that is not a defense of Biden. It's just a fact.
I mean I can give you dozens of examples of Joe promoting them.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/biden-sharply-hikes-us-tariffs-billions-chinese-chips-cars-2024-05-14/
Maybe don't assert as truth based on you being ignorant.
Facts aren’t important to Sarcles. Attacking Trump is.
Maybe don’t assert as truth based on you being ignorant.
If that was how it worked, pretty much every internet message board would be silent except for shoprite bots and work from home scams.
And for each one of those I'm sure Trump has promoted his tariffs a dozen more. Tariffs are central to his campaign and identity as president. That is not nor was it ever the case with Biden. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in the case of tariffs nothing squeaks more than Trump.
Oh, ‘you’re sure’? The only thing that’s sure about you is that you will be blackout drunk by about…… now.
"I’m sure Trump has promoted his tariffs a dozen more"
SARCASMIC "IS SURE", EVERYONE!
HE'S PRACTICALLY "ALMOST POSITIVE"!
That ends all discussion right there. Drunky hath decreed!
And totally not a leftist!
“don’t go around bragging about tariffs and promising more”
You’re joking right? https://reason.com/2024/05/14/bidens-tariffs-are-a-bad-idea/
Now I will admit that Harris hasn’t said anything about tariffs that I could find (she hasn’t said much about a lot of stuff), but she has been pushing tax policies that would be even more disastrous than tariffs.
That article doesn't exist because Reason never criticizes Biden.
Then you shouldn’t exist either, for the same reason.
The ones who mention his tariffs while ignoring every other cost to taxpayers is you, sarc, and shrike.
Even this headline makes it seem this is a Trump unique thing. It isn’t. But you idiots are too dishonest to note it.
Meanwhile you also defend anti market actions by China, ignore regulatory policies, advocate for tax increases, open borders welfare and other retarded bullshit with far higher costs than tariffs.
Almost makes it seem your only point of contention is the who not the what.
The ones who mention his tariffs while ignoring every other cost to taxpayers is you, sarc, and shrike.
Fallacy of relative privation combined with strawman, check.
Even this headline makes it seem this is a Trump unique thing. It isn’t. But you idiots are too dishonest to note it.
Deliberately misconstruing, check.
Meanwhile you also defend anti market actions by China, ignore regulatory policies, advocate for tax increases, open borders welfare and other retarded bullshit with far higher costs than tariffs.
Bald-faced lies, check.
Almost makes it seem your only point of contention is the who not the what.
Projection, check.
You don’t need to explain what a raging liar you are. We already know.
Now fuck off, m’kay?
Strange how the left derides and ridicule's Trump as an economic illiterate pointing towards his tariff's but when Biden announces 100% tariffs on chinese EV's there is not a peep out of anyone.
Or the new Biden style tariffs.
And those are bad, too. But Trump has talked about massively higher and broader import tariffs and he would have the power to enforce them on Day 1.
Fuck off you dishonest cunt. Trump offered reciprocal 0% tariffs to promote free trade and lower costs for Americans other countries rejected that and got reciprocation of their own stance. China being the exception because they make theft a core part of their trade strategy.
Biden, mentioned nowhere here, increased tariffs solely in order to protect domestic union rackets as you complain about but blame Trump.
One is a reciprocal game theory answer for optimal results, the other is destructive for no point and you manage to fuck up, intentionally and maliciously, which is which.
So what? The fact of the matter is that Trump does not support free trade now. He wants to build a wall around the country with high tariffs to protect domestic industry from foreign competition.
That never works out for the little guy.
SJiN: ” Trump offered reciprocal 0% tariffs to promote free trade and lower costs for Americans other countries rejected that and got reciprocation of their own stance. China being the exception because they make theft a core part of their trade strategy.
Biden, mentioned nowhere here, increased tariffs solely in order to protect domestic union rackets as you complain about”
Sarc: “So what? It’s not what he did, or what Biden is doing or what Kamala says she will do. It’s Trump’s threats that are the problem”
This exchange tells you everything that you need to know about Sarcasmic.
Do you get paid by the strawman?
That is essentially what you said. It’s all about attacking Trump for you. Ow you scream ‘strawman’.
You’re such a little bitch crybaby democrat shill.
Tell us all how that was a "strawman", retard.
So dangerous rhetoric is a fancy way of saying Mean Tweets?
Pretty much. Even though democrat operatives on pseudo newscasts constantly call Trump a Nazi and a threat to our existence all day every day. This includes David Muir, Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, etc.. And 100% of assassination attempts of high profile politicians in this country have been against republicans .
The grey box is all I need to know.
This exchange tells you everything that you need to know about Sarcasmic
What should it tell me?
Sarc points out that, although Trump started his tariffs in 2016 as game theory move against China (side note: I think this is all Trump apologist retconning Trump’s trade deficit ignorance), he is now campaigning on full in tariffs across the board.
So what should we believe? That Trump is a campaign-liar and we should believe his apologists that he will stick with his previous not-as-bad-tariff-policy that SJIN uses to defend him and ignore what Trump himself says? Or, that Trump is an honest, economy crashing, inflation boosting, economic ignoramus? Or, how about both?
As for comparing to Kamala? IDK. What kind of tariffs come with the “joy” policy?
Trump is only the better choice because all of his dumbest ideas will go nowhere due to his incompetence as a leader and politician.
Trump is only the better choice because all of his dumbest ideas will go nowhere due to his incompetence as a leader and politician.
You do make a very good point.
Actually it is a false point. Trump can impose tariffs without congressional approval. He is indeed incompetent which is why he wants import tariffs.
Regarding your “game theory” barb.
Did China crack down on theft? Yes or no? Were tariffs reduced once that happened? Yes or no?
Don’t be like sarc and assume the defense of one tariff is in defense of all them. Makes you look ignorant like sarc.
Did China crack down on theft? Yes or no? Were tariffs reduced once that happened? Yes or no?
To keep it short: I'll go with no and no.
You would be wrong on both counts. This is unsurprising.
OK. Educate me.
China came to the negotiating table and backed down in a number of key areas. Jesse has covered that here at least a dozen times. So we actually made progress in both IP theft and Chinese tariffs.
These key areas?
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/china-bought-none-extra-200-billion-us-exports-trumps-trade-deal
China bought none of the extra $200 billion of US exports in Trump's trade deal
What is the progress on IP theft?
Why then does Trump now propose a 60% tariff on China?
IP theft is back in the shitter now that your senile overlord Biden, who is bought and paid for by the ChiComs, largely let’s them do whatever they want.
"how about both?"
Both.
Are you in some competition for most idiotic man alive? Where, other than out of your ass, do you get this and how are you so incapable of seeing Biden and Harris as worse BY YOUR OWN METRICS. JFC you are tiresome and need to go back in your grey box.
A binary-thinking strawman. Bravo!
Let me clue you in here. The subject of the article was not Biden and Harris. Harris is not running on a platform based upon trade restrictions. Her followers don't defend tariffs and attack anyone critical of them. Criticism of Trump does not equal support for Biden and Harris. Attacking someone for not attacking Democrats doesn't make criticism of Republicans invalid.
And you call me an idiot? Fuck...
Oh, so because you ignore something that means it's invalid, got it. Biden and Harris have their own tariff policy that you and KMW intentionally ignore. You're here to declare including the other option an invalid topic but that's totally not to defend Biden/Harris by deflecting from them, sure thing retard.
Sarc is the one true democrat.
Binary thinking is binary.
Count:4
Incorrectly used: 3
Used for nonsense: 1
Taking someone's criticism of one side's policies and interpreting that to be support for the other side's policies is the definition of binary thinking.
You should know. You act as if you invented it.
You’re very stupid. Your severe alcohol abuse isn’t helping either.
The lad could turn this into a drinking game
Even people with titanium livers would die of alcohol poisoning playing that.
Shaken, not stirred. Liver let die.
Count: 3
Incorrectly used: 3
Like this?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/
I routinely condemn the Biden/Harris administration for that, though the usual suspects will claim I've never said that before. They'll claim I didn't say it just now. To them this comment does not exist. Like the Reason articles critical of Democrats.
If Trump defenders had any principles at all, they'd praise the Biden/Harris administration for that. But they won't because they don't.
Why? Because they're defending Trump the man, not his policies.
I see you do that when you want to counter me posting that link.
""If Trump defenders had any principles at all, they’d praise the Biden/Harris administration for that.""
Again about Trump. Why not if Biden fans had any principles they would support Trumps tariffs.
Why not if Biden fans had any principles they would support Trumps tariffs.
Because Biden fans don’t go around attacking anyone critical of his tariffs.
""Why? Because they’re defending Trump the man""
That's really the crux of the problem isn't it.
Biden’s tariffs are structural tariffs. Trump used tariffs as leverage to get third parties like China and the EU to reduce theirs. This has been explained to you upwards of a hundred times over the last several years. You don’t care.
Everything with you is attacking Trump.
And your explanation is wrong. Tariffs are tariffs and do damage to the US no matter what you call them or how you describe them. And yes, I am as strongly opposed to Biden's tariffs as I was to Trump's tariffs.
Harris is not running on a campaign to impoverish the US and create massive inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods. Trump is.
Why would they do that when Biden’s tariffs were mostly specifically protectionist while Trumps were mostly specifically retaliatory?
Retaliatory tariffs are still protectionist. They still protect politically connected special interests. They just slap a different label on it and claim that makes it totally different. But it's not.
No. They are not.
They are in response to a bad market actions. The tariffs mentioned were removed after behaviors changed.
Jesse: once they weren't needed to protect the politically connected special interests, they were removed. That means they weren't protectionist. Hurr durr.
Doesn’t that basically make all tariffs inherently protectionist?
I see a difference between raising tariffs to appease the steel workers union and raising tariffs on French products because they refuse to stop pirates or Germany refuses to lower their tariffs on US goods.
All tariffs are inherently protectionist and I don't see any difference at all.
No. You do not. Find one time.
Oh, I don’t know. The half a dozen times this week where you told me it was the first time I’d ever said such a thing. And the hundreds of times before that where you said the same thing. You’re such a shameless liar. Should have gone into law enforcement.
He's not smart enough.
Don't samefag your posts, Sarckles.
We need a scorecard to tell which sock puppets go with which idiot leftist here.
Disadvantaged trade isn't free trade moron.
Free trade means your own government does not interfere with and hinder your freedom to trade with people in other countries. Period. That's it.
No. It isn't. That is pure ignorance.
Simple example.
Company a and company b make the same widget.
Government implements new regulatory cost to widget. Government exempted company b.
Company a rises prices due to regulatory change while company b is exempt.
Is this a free marker dumdum?
A free market requires same baseline agreements between actors. Again. What you argue for is disadvantaged trade including no response yo violations of the free market.
What you advocate for is a cost subsumed by American companies due to theft of China so you can buy more cheaply from China at a known cost to others. You support theft. Not free markets. You support market manipulation, not free markets.
You’re describing protectionism, not free trade.
Protectionism is companies complaining that things aren’t fair, and governments using tariffs to appease them at the expense of consumers.
Free trade is when governments look out for consumers and don’t restrict their ability to trade freely. Period.
Free Domestic or Foreign Trade?????
If your not being a downright tool an 80% Domestic tax should alarm you much more.
So what? The fact of the matter is that Biden does not support domestic free trade now.
Do you think the little guy is going to be more employable because of MORE domestic taxes?
Tariffs can be for revenue or for protection, but not both.
Revenue tariffs must be low enough to not change consumer behavior, or they don't bring in revenue. They are meant to be paid.
Protectionist tariffs must be high enough to change behavior, otherwise they don't protect domestic industry. They are meant to not be paid.
People claiming that the nation was built on protectionist tariffs want it both ways. They claim that the government was funded mostly by revenue from tariffs that protected domestic industry. That claim contradictory.
There is a third type of tariff. I've never seen much written about it though unions are the ones who understand it (or parts of it).
It is protective but the purpose is to protect labor/other regulations/etc of the society. Not to protect an 'industry'. The obvious example is slavery. If a society wants to abolish slavery as a working condition, then that is completely undermined by a zero tariff imposed on a country that retains slavery. You can say the same thing about wages or working conditions or climate/energy usage or a ton of other things that a society may choose to regulate in a particular or unique way.
Those are decisions of basic societal governance. Pretending that tariff systems can undermine or bypass those is - an act of war. Unfortunately libertarians ARE on the side of undermining societal governance via something that can appear 'free market'.
Tariffs can also be used as leverage in trade negotiations. But you refuse to acknowledge that.
"Tariffs can be for revenue or for protection, but not both."
...because of The 'Sarc' Bible of Commandments or what?
I don't believe you have a firm grasp of this subject.
Mutually beneficial exchange increases wealth. When both your government and foreign governments conspire to treat you as a mark, it's hard to argue that such exchanges are "beneficial" to you. So it's understandable to wonder what might happen if they stopped conspiring with one another to confiscate the wealth of its citizens, and started competing with one another.
Tariffs don't work, but then neither does subsidizing foreign businesses in order to get at their cheap and often, at the very least, coerced labor.
So if another government forces its citizens to pay taxes on imports, making life more expensive, the fair thing to do is petition your government to make you pay more taxes on imports and make life more expensive?
That sounds pretty dumb.
Fighting slave labor has a price.
No, you’re pretty dumb. Retaliatory tariffs work if the other side has more to lose.
Saec supports foreign actors stealing if he can get cheaper goods.
Just for fun he should put tariffs on all items from countries whose CO2 emissions are not equal to or less than their 1990 total. I mean if climate change is such an existential threat to the world then nobody could disagree with this right? Then watch the Dems heads explode trying explain how that is a bad idea.
Democrats have never been in favor of free trade, so they might think that's a great idea.
That is exactly what future tariffs will look like. A country that is really threatened by climate change (start with islands) will start imposing twenty bazillion percent tariffs on all trade from heavy greenhouse gas emitters. Not so much a revenue tariff or a protective tariff but a punitive tariff.
Economic application of the NAP?
So economic history suggests that tariffs are generally bad, theory suggests that tariffs are generally bad, those of us who are capitalists think that tariffs are generally bad...but when Trump imposes them, they're the best, many people have said so.
Not so much that they’re the best. The counterarguments are mostly ad hominems.
You oppose Trump’s tariffs but you’re not attacking Biden’s tariffs, so you’re wrong.
You oppose Trump's tariffs which means you support slavery, so you're wrong.
Very few of the defenses of Trump’s tariffs actually involve defending tariffs. They’re mostly attacks on the critic.
Biden believes they are good to protect American companies too. But people don't want to mention that either.
As far as taxation goes, they will always be more moral than income taxes. So they have that going for them.
As far as taxation goes, [tariffs] will always be more moral than income taxes.
Careful you don't cut yourself on Hitchen's Razor.
lol, how do you figure I’m in any danger of that?
Because you provide no evidence for your assertion - and indeed, given the subjective nature of morality it's hard to see how you could
Haven't you supported every major trade agreement which is nothing but combined tariffs, trade amounts, regulatory promises, etc.
It still amazes me what some of you dummies call free trade.
The king of strawmen keeps earning his crown.
Proponents of free trade do not conflate political "free trade agreements" with actual free trade.
That thing you're arguing against only exists in your imagination.
Yes they do conflate the two. No one out there is arguing economic theory because Ricardian economic theory does not apply to a world of floating exchange rates, bank created reserve currency, and multinationals with globalized supply chains. At least not in any fleshed out way that isn't purely rhetoric
Can "free trade agreements" be better for consumers than what they replace? Sure.
Are they free trade? Not by a long shot.
Does saying they're better than what they replace equal conflating them with free trade? Jesse would say yes, but an honest person would say no.
Doesn’t seem to be useful to compare a theory to something in the real world.
Oh - and 'consumers' is at best a partial role that people play in life. Losing one's income (or rendering it marginal and variable) as a producer does not offset 'lower prices' at WalMart.
People lose their income all the time. If someone loses their job in Idaho because people can do it more cheaply in Georgia, is that reason to get angry at Georgia?
Is that reason to tax yourself as revenge?
Why so people see it as totally different when it’s another country?
8 – 12 million or more directly lost their jobs to outsourcing. Those are almost entirely jobs that disappeared because reduced tariffs made it possible for the company to play tax games with internal accounting. ie intermediate prices of internal production are bogus. Further, when those factories shut down – house prices plunged in that town and made it impossible to sell. The lack of ‘trade adjustment’ meant that those who benefited pocketed everything and the losers ended up in dead towns. So purely a utilitarian winners/losers calculation not a true economic ‘everyone benefits’. That is the reason they have been forgotten from Perot, until Trump paid attention to the worst element of their ‘grievances’. That is also the demographic that is killing itself – now losing jobs to third world immigrants – and reducing life expectancy in that age group. Since it was always a pure winners/losers calculation – the losers now want to win at their former winners expense this time. THAT is why the populism.
That is a hell of a cost for, if you look at the tariffs history chart I linked below, virtually no overall benefit outside the management/WallSt class. Almost literally no change of any consequence in tariffs and/or true ‘free trade’ since 1980 – before the WTO.
Why so people see it as totally different when it’s another country?
Because if it’s Idaho and Georgia, you can get together in a common Congress and work on the issue. Or each state can develop an approach. If it’s the WTO – the only conversations happen on K Street or at Davos and states can do nothing.
Domestic Tax-Cuts are the best.
A Nation Debt exists that needs paid for too.
A National Defense Department exists that needs paid for too.
Maybe in "Care-bare Land" a Nation can go without a National Defense without being Invaded into ruins but in the real world a Nation has to defend itself against Foreign Invasion and Foreign Corruption.
Now. Do you think Domestic should Pay all the Foreign 'Governing' costs for the Foreign Trade market or what?
What cracks me up is that the Steel Industry begged Obama for tariffs and Obama did nothing. Trump gives them the tariffs that they wanted and says that they have five years to put their shit in order and they bitch about him.
on one hand, Trump has implied he would pursue the idea of replacing income tax with tariffs. I would take that deal. But tariffs in general are protectionist measures, not for revenue unless they are blanket tariffs. Trump's specific tariff proposals so far are definitely protectionist and bad for consumers.
However, nothing compares to the catastrophic economic plans of his opponent, so there's that.
Does "not for revenue" advertised automatically = No Revenue?
high tariff protectionism continued to attract rent-seeking interest groups.
The 'free trade' mantra attracts far more powerful rent-seeking interest groups. US tariffs have been at their lowest in history for at least 40 years. 5% on dutiable imports v 20% at their lowest during the 19th century (>50% with Smoot-Hawley).
And yet the rhetoric around 'free trade' is always panicky - and more religious than economic. Unless we keep engaging in new WTO rounds, then Smoot Hawley is right behind us and will eat our eyeballs. When you look at who benefits from those new rounds, it is the large multinationals and financials. Those with now-global supply chains whose 'trade' is mostly internal accounting transactions not anything arm's length. Who benefit from multilateral agreements rather than bilateral so they can jurisdiction shop labor regs. Who can take advantage of supranational dispute resolution. Precisely the entities that used those lower tariffs to outsource domestic ops and use them to threaten future outsourcing.
That's rent seeking. Favoring the large and established. Big enough to donate to think tanks and to move any disputes and policy preferences beyond nation-states where the lumpen influence stops.
Tariffs are such a small cost to consumers or taxpayers as compared to the other issues it becomes laughable as to all the freak out and discussions on it.
It just makes it seem the discussion is asinine. Why is so much more time spent on tariffs than US regulatory policy as an example. The costs aren't even close with regulatory costs dwarfing tariffs.
Because if multinationals can focus on reducing tariffs, they can bypass regulations that might apply to them. Just relocate ops overseas and import the stuff that is not subject to the regs that focus on production. Even better when those same companies can own the regulations and kneecap their domestic competition.
^THIS.
The 'attack Trump' desperation really shows.
Eating Pets, Mean Tweets, A foreign Tax....
It's jokingly humorous the imagination that has to get used to make attacks.
The price caps on credit card interest are also idiotic and will only serve to make it hard for people who need short term credit to get it.
However, again, the scope and scale of this misguided policy is nothing compared to the calamity proposed by his opponent.. soooooooo
That said, it is generally true that the primary customer base for high interest rate credit cards are the retarded, and college age females (but i repeat myself), so if you support nanny state controls of the incompetent for their own good, then this one would be a win as well.
I knew a girl in college who didnt even realize that you had to pay back the charges you made on the credit card. She literally just thought you sign up for free money.
To this day, her vote counts as much as yours.
And she probably has kids.
And he’s possibly picking up some of the tab for the kiddos’ food, housing, schooling, medical costs, and transportation.
One sided disadvantaged trade doesn't grow an economy either.
Like how normal tarries throughout history are now called Trump style though.
""are now called Trump style though.""
That's how you can tell the bias.
Act Blue donors that either shoot or conduct armed stalking of Trump are apparently now called conservative.
what really grows an economy are price controls and wealth taxes
The road to prosperity is paved with higher taxes.
“But…………… JUST DOMESTIC ONES!!!!”, Leftard Libertarian Shills.
While I respect de Rugy, she does take into account the new environment in the way - trade imbalance and cheap labor.
Tariff's try to level the playing field some. She talks imports but not exports.
Not just those things, China does not trade the Yuan on the open market. They just declare a price range that it can trade in and then use a different version of their currency for internal economy.
This removes all feedback mechanisms. If any free market economy grew at 20% per year, like theirs ostensibly did, it would be dealing with issues like inflation and currency valuation changes that would make their trading partners' economies more competitive.
That says nothing about IP theft, outright product forgery, or even tricky shit like gaming international treaties to make receiving countries massively subsidize the shipping costs from Chinese businesses.
It's only a free market if it's a free market for everyone participating.
A good tariff is one that promotes industry at home. A bad tariff is one that gets in the way of exporting our domestic product or inhibits the import of necessary goods.
A proper tariff policy would evaluate tariffs as an individual tariff and not as a lump policy goal because not all tariffs are created the same.
And on top of that, Americans who want to “care” for the environment and protect consumers should be willing to put their money where their mouth is, because otherwise, it’s just offshoring the consequences of industry to protect your own backyard’s vistas, forcing impoverished countries to eat the cost of your virtue while you suffer only the profits.
Counterpoint: Price controls and taxing unrealized gains do what to an economy?
I'm sorry, but pissing about Trump talking (wrongly) about tariffs is going to fall on deaf ears when the alternative is nuclear grade retarded.
The irony is they are calling the status quo beyond the pale when Kamala's economy-destroying Marxist garbage is sitting right there.
Maybe she doesn't actually want to do those things, maybe it's just a 'dog whistle' to try and get the socialists on her side, but the fact is she put it out there and apparently that is just fine. Reason has written way more articles about Trump and his bog standard tariff policy than they have Kamala's insane notions, which says more about the rag than perhaps they'd care to reveal.
I don't think they're hiding it anymore, Byodb.
Y'know, ngl, part of me is kinda hoping that Kamala wins and does exactly what she's promising. Tax the unrealized gains. Watch the stock market collapse within a month of it. America needs that, I think. They need that kick in the crotch. That might actually be the only thing that snaps our society of autopilot NPCs (both left AND right) out of their Wall-E loungecars.
That's not to say that I'll vote for her. It's the same position I found myself in 2016. I loathed the idea of Hillary Clinton's America. But I wasn't afraid of it. As the midget frog allegedly said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Night's always darkest before the dawn. But the dawn always comes.
'course, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant to the reality that the China/Russia/Iran hydra will almost certainly strike in the meantime. But maybe I'm also hoping that we stop pussyfooting around nuking our enemies to total obliteration when that happens. (And, honestly, I'm not even that worked up over MAD because the likelihood is that they'll target blue cities. Which, y'know, bonus for us.)
I don't know. There's a certain peace to me with it all.
Y'know there's a substack I read. Guy named Peter Heck. I know you're on the wrong side of it all right now bro, but I think you might be one of the few people around here that might take something from this:
From a worldly perspective it makes complete sense. To be brutally blunt, without Jesus, what we are living right now is the only heaven we'll ever know. It truly doesn't, and will never, get better than this. That places an unendurable significance, an otherworldly strain on people, positions, and events that happen around and to us. We have to obsess over worldly power, wringing our hands over who wields it, because it is the de-facto, counterfeit god we will necessarily worship.
Christians do not bear that burden. Living a life in Christ means that what we currently experience is the only hell we will ever know. The pain and sorrow of this life is as bad as it will ever be, and it is only for a time. That truth releases the emotional burden associated with believing everything hinges on the next debate, the next election, the next judicial nomination. It doesn't.
I'm not trying to evangelize or convert you buddy (well, some little Catholic part of me is, but I ain't going to club you over the head with it), your life is yours to do with as you see fit. And I certainly am not pretending that I live - or am even capable of living - the perfect Christian life. I'm just saying, maybe I don't care about all this petty political nonsense anymore. Demagogues or stock markets or nuclear holocaust - what does it really matter. We've already won the real war. The only one that matters.
We can obsess over those counterfeit gods, or we can cherish the tiny happiness that the real God gives us every day - in all the little forms it often comes.
I'm going with the latter. America will survive if it wants to, but it won't be because of an election.
Harris has embraced extreme neo Marxist stupidity her entire political career. Whether she’s a true believer or not is irrelevant. She will do it.
A over-spent bankrupt nation either pays Tariffs or Taxes.
Charging Domestic 80% while Foreign 0% is not American at all.
And only someone who wants to destroy a nation SPENDS MORE.
As a former importer, we were constantly looking for lower prices for the products we imported (both inputs to manufacture and items for resale). If tariffs on China go up, you look elsewhere to other low-cost countries, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia, India, VietNam, etc., such as happened with the anti-dumping duties placed on aluminum 15 years ago. Good news is this can mitigate the pernicious effects of the tariffs on costs to the American consumer. Bad news is that will do nothing to stimulate American manufacturing beyond the status quo. If the tariffs work as desired, i.e., increase American manufacturing in the value chain, it can only result in higher costs and/or lower margins.
Ever stop to wonder how it is a product can include world-round travel/shipping and still under-cut the manufacturer next door?
It wasn't that long ago the US taxpayer was directly paying for that shipping (subsidizing) but I think Trump finally got rid of that BS. The rest is pretty easily chalked up to that neighbors taxes still.
Importing tax-free is a tax-dodge.
Trump is selling America a bill of goods. US manufacturing is doing fine. But most factories are automated so far fewer workers are needed. Trump is suggesting that his tariffs will result in manufacturing jobs returning to the rust belt. Everyone with an IQ above 70, which may or may not include Trump and Vance, knows that that is not going to happen.
So an IQ of 71? For anyone over 72 IQ it's easily seen that exporting creation isn't going to equal more US jobs and nothing causes more exporting that giving it a 0% tax-rate/tariff in contrast to the 80% domestic tax-rate.
Reason once again upsets the idiot MAGAts in the comments section.