Trump's Pro-Growth, Anti-Trade Positions Are on a Collision Course
The stark disconnect not only runs the risk of choking off much of the global commerce the president claims to welcome but threatens to stick U.S. consumers and businesses with higher costs.

At last week's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Donald Trump mixed compelling pro-growth talking points with his signature streak of aggressive protectionism. It's safe to say that these two ideas are officially on a collision course.
On one hand, Trump insists that "America is back and open for business." His promises to make America a 15 percent corporate-tax haven and lower energy costs are signs of this commitment.
On the other hand, Trump warns of punishing tariffs and retaliatory measures for Americans who dare to manufacture or source inputs for their products from abroad, or for countries that dare to tax their own citizens in ways he deems unfair. This sends a very different message: that the U.S. is closed to the modern way of doing business.
The stark disconnect not only runs the risk of choking off much of the global commerce Trump claims to welcome but threatens to stick U.S. consumers and businesses with higher costs. It's a blueprint for undermining American competitiveness, not enhancing it.
It bears repeating that tariffs are not exactly paid for by foreigners. They're taxes on imports shouldered by American consumers, including businesses. Most of what we import are inputs for businesses to produce things in America. Some imports are traded between related parties. Think of Tesla, which is headquartered in Texas but has foreign subsidiaries that must trade with one another.
Even if you believe U.S. businesses should have to buy inputs at home, you are supporting increasing the costs of producing at home. Either way, tariffs make American producers worse off and undermine the competitive advantages Trump is otherwise trying to strengthen.
More baffling still is Trump's conflation of Europe's Value Added Tax (VAT) with tariffs. In his remarks, Trump railed against the European Union, claiming it treats America "very, very unfairly" by imposing "a large tax that we know about—a VAT tax." For that, he wants to punish Europe with tariffs—hence threatening another costly trade war with allies—over how they tax themselves.
I truly dislike VATs, but they do not treat U.S. exports unfairly. A VAT is a consumption tax levied on the value added to a product at each step in the supply chain. Picture a vehicle being produced by German car company. When a component is added, the VAT is calculated and applied. Unlike a tariff, which is specifically designed to make foreign goods more expensive, a VAT is neutral. It applies equally to domestic and imported goods.
Moreover, when goods are exported from a VAT-using country, the tax is refunded, ensuring that a country's exports are not taxed more than their international competitors' products. If that same German car is exported to the U.S., the VAT paid during production is refunded before it's shipped. The car is then subjected to U.S. sales taxes or other applicable taxes upon arrival. Similarly, when a U.S. company exports goods to Europe, they are subject to Europe's VAT, just as European domestic good are.
VATs are revenue-raising mechanisms that have done a lot to pay for the expansion of large European welfare states. They're fair to criticize as a tool for big government to grow and take on ever-greater roles in citizens' lives. But they're not a weapon in trade wars. Threatening European governments with tariffs won't change any of that.
If the president's goal is to make U.S. goods more competitive, he's already touting the right ideas: reducing regulatory burdens and cutting domestic taxes. If his desire is for more companies to produce in America, he should prioritize and expand firms' ability to fully expense their capital investments when his tax cuts are extended.
If Trump's concern is that European governments, by slowing their own economic growth with punishing taxes and spending, are also slowing the growth for American exports, he should just say that. And if he's genuinely concerned about VATs, the proper response isn't to retaliate; it's to say a firm "no" to those pundits and scholars arguing for the U.S. to adopt its own VAT to pay for more government.
Do all this rather than the tariffs, which are a solution to none of the above. Economically, tariffs are blunt instruments that rarely achieve their goals. They don't create new manufacturing jobs or bring back industries long gone. Instead, they raise prices on everything from cars to food to electronics.
For consumers, this means less purchasing power. For businesses, it means higher costs and less ability to compete globally. That's the opposite of being open for business.
COPYRIGHT 2025 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
Yup.
Uh huh.
Cite your work. Difficulty. Show actual instances and data, not models built on the assumptions they prove.
“not models built on the assumptions they prove”
Is that a fancy way to describe his retarded, alcohol fueled, raging delusions?
My work has been learning about economics from economists. Something you refuse to do since you think anyone who doesn't praise Trump is a leftist, and something like 99% of economists think his trade policies are bollocks.
Now tell us, what is wrong with the article (Other than the author not praising Trump)?
No. You show YOUR work. You don’t set the agenda or discussion here.
But we all know you don’t have shit.
Cite you learning a single thing about economics. You refuse to even admot to what free trade means for fucks sake.
You haven't learned anything but narratives. Mostly false.
So prove what you've learned. Using data and evidence from your supposed economists, show us how a deregulatory policy clashes with tariffs or where tariffs have a measurable effect on growth at the levels being proposed. Then explain to us why using tariffs to change behaviors of other countries tariffs and trade protections has zero effect on the US, it all being a one way streets per what you say about economics. Then tell us what you understand of supply shift. Explain to us how tariffs are a bigger driver than the regulatory state which is currently 100x greater than the tsriff costs.
Use actual data to prove your thesis. Not claims or models.
You argue economics like any Keyenesian, never proving your claims. I also ask them to show me one time a multiplier is greater than 1. They also use appeal to authority because they can't. They also use models that are wrong.
You're arguing against a strawman who thinks that opposing tariffs means opposing deregulation.
You’re obsessed with tariffs to the exclusion of all else. Because TRUMP!!!!!!!!
You don't know a whit about economics. The only economics you know are counter-arguments against economic strawman. You should be embarrassed. Fuck.
You’re not anyone to impugn anyone’s knowledge of economics.
Read My Lips, No New Taxes. Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent.
>>On the other hand, Trump warns of punishing tariffs
at this point you hold the record @Reason by making it all the way to the third paragraph before wrecking your entire piece.
Won't someone think of federal funding to NGOs, government and illegals as growth.
Very peronist argument in Argentina.
the Vatican's existence renders Catholic Charities an oxymoron
How dare Reason challenge Donald Trump's economic policies? Don't they understand Magic Bean economics? Almost half of US voters apparently believe in Magic Bean economics so it must be true. Hell, most of the commenters here believe in it as well.
Prove your thesis shrike. Same conditions as sarc above.
Apparently you think deregulation and tax cuts don't work. Yet you claim to be in finance. Weird.
What about deregulation and tax cuts combined with sensible trade policy? That's what the author is saying, and that's what most people who aren't willfully ignorant of economics would say.
Only the strawman you argue against day in and day out says that anyone who opposes tariffs thinks deregulation and tax cuts are terrible. It's not either/or you dishonest buffoon.
You always cry about how people critical of tariffs ignore regulations. We don't. We like deregulation. The major difference is that we want the benefits of deregulation combined with good trade policy. We don't want to eat the harm of bad trade policy and hope deregulation covers the cost.
“Waahhhhhh!!!!! tariffs !!!!!!! Wahhhhhh!!!!!! TRUMP!!!!!!! Waahhhhhh!!!!!!!”
-Shorter Sarc
Your idea of sensible trade policy is advantaged trade. Which is not sensible dumbass.
Your sensible trade ignored all anti market acts from other entities as you proclaim your policies only on the US. It ignores costs like supply chain risk. It even fucking ignores supply shift.
Your idea of sensible trade is retarded.
Advantages trade has never led to optimized markets. Ignoring actions from market actors has never led to optimized markets.
If your sensible trade policy only works in ideal markets and depends on ignoring reality, it isn't sensible. We don't design aircraft assuming ideal atmospheric parameters for that very fucking reason.
Just self declaring your ideas sensible while never proving your ideas work is the sign of an economic retard.
Are you drunk? I mean, this is extra stupid.
You are drunk. And yes, you are extra stupid.
There is no way his ignorant ass is in finance. He’s just some random neo marxist pedophile. Probably all of one step removed from being a drunken hobo getting sodomized for booze money, like Sarc.
Hey Shrike, I thought you might be interested in this.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/former-senior-obama-clinton-aide-sentenced-11-years/
Friend of yours?
So how do we persuade Trump on this matter?
Call him Hitler a few more times.
He's been on the tariff train since at least the 80s when he said we needed protective tariffs to save us from cheap Japanese electronics. I doubt he's going to change his mind now.
Trump is just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.
That's true for some of his stuff but when it comes to tariffs, he's repeated his intent and he continues to believe that a trade deficit means we're being ripped off in international trade - a position so moronic even many of his defenders here won't defend it, so no.
Best case scenario is lowering corporate taxes rates and slashing of regulations while the tariff threats have the desired effect of changing our trading partners habits/policies. Thus no collision course.
Worst case scenario, the Republican controlled Congress does fuck all on taxes and he actually implements the worst of his tariff policies.
Most likely scenario: he works on Congress to lower corporate taxes and most of the tariff talk ends up just being bluster (except for China, everyone has a hardon for taxing those goods), so more a wash than a collision course.
Let’s wait and see what actually happens.
I wish I had enough faith in Trump to think he's bluffing on tarriffs. I just don't think he has even an inkling of correct knowledge or instinct on economics. On the other hand, for a bluff to work he'd need to fool most people to think he's serious.
He's either very smart or very dumb. I know where my money is....well, while I still have money, that is.
Oh he would absolutely implement them if one of the countries tried to call the bluff. I don’t doubt that.
He has the advantage of being the 750lb gorilla in the room though, so I think most of them will fold (as Columbia did).
On the plus side, he doesn’t have to convince a ton of people, just those in charge of the other countries.
Good summary. We've already seen Trump back off of a tariff threat in Columbia when he got what he wanted. We shall see how much is real and how much is bluster but I'd rather see him dropping tariffs than bombs.
So how Anti-Trade are 80% Domestic Manufacturing Taxes?
Those aren’t tariffs, so no big deal.
-Sarc