Trade Wars That Never Happen Still Have Costs
One CEO says the uncertainty created by Trump's chaotic trade policies is "reminiscent of the adjustments we had to make during Covid-19."

In the first two weeks of his tenure, President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, said repeatedly that there was nothing the two countries could do to avoid the tariffs, and then…announced that the tariffs would not be imposed after all (for at least 30 days).
But even trade wars that don't happen have costs.
More to the point: The economic uncertainty created by Trump's tariff threats has already warped markets and harmed the economy in ways large and small.
"We have had to suspend every [capital expenditure] project we have for the next 24 months until we better understand the trade situation," Randy Carr told Bloomberg. Carr is CEO of World Emblem, the Florida-based business that is the world's largest manufacturer of emblems and patches. The company has also suspended plans to hire new employees. The disruptions, Carr says, are "reminiscent of the adjustments we had to make during Covid-19."
The uncertainty created by Trump's will-he/won't-he tariff strategy is not as bad as the tariffs themselves would be, of course. Following through with tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada would have reduced the size of the U.S. economy by 0.3 percent of gross domestic product and caused the loss of an estimated 269,000 jobs, according to the Tax Foundation.
But tariffs that never materialize create costs too—and that's something we know, in part, because of how Trump handled trade policy during his first term. Uncertainty created by Trump's trade policies reduced aggregate U.S. investment by as much as $47 billion in 2018, according to a 2020 study in the Journal of Monetary Economics.
The authors of that paper wrote that "all measures suggest that uncertainty about trade policy has recently shot up to levels not seen since the 1970s." They concluded that "both higher expected tariffs and increased uncertainty about future tariffs deters investment."
Trump's fans and allies try to justify his chaotic trade policies by arguing that the president is merely negotiating with other countries. That would make more sense if he wasn't picking an unnecessary fight with two of America's biggest trading partners, countries with which Trump literally negotiated a new trade deal during his first term.
Even so, there's no negotiating with the reaction of the markets—which responded negatively to the tariff threats and now seem to be pricing in the uncertainty going forward. (And, of course, the threat of those tariffs remains because Trump suspended them for only 30 days.)
No one—possibly including Trump, who is now threatening tariffs on European goods and all steel and aluminum imports—seems to know what will come next.
This much, however, is certain: A full-blown trade war would be costly for American businesses, consumers, and the economy as a whole—and the ongoing threat of such a conflict comes with plenty of costs too.
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
You never know what tomorrow will bring. Doesn’t matter who is in office.
Which is why we need to get rid of the whole executive order thing. Presidents can certainly direct their executive agencies, but they cannot just go change the law willy nilly.
Tariffs need to go through Congress. Immigration needs to go through Congress. The president can sign treaties, but the president cannot change the terms of treaties on a whim.
The office of the president has too much power. It's both sides unable to recognize that the other side gets to wield that power too. Limit and restrain the government.
It’s all about who, not what. Trump defenders want limited government when the other team is in power, and want him to have the power of a king.
That’s the cue for the usual whiners lie and cry “You didn’t complain about Biden waaaah!”
Poor sarc.
You actively excused biden.
"It’s all about who, not what."
You are correct, but not in the way you think you are.
Pour Sarc.
The real issue is not the idea of executive orders - the root cause is Congressional over-delegation of authority to the executive branch. If Congress wants to take back control of tariffs and immigration, they need to repeal the laws that gave away that authority in the first place.
They won't. They don't want to. They want to give speeches and get bribes, and palm off all the actual work on somebody else. Who better than the President?
Government looks after itself, first and foremost.
The only way to tame government is letting individuals tame it, without lawyers, judges, appeals courts, or politicians having any say.
Let anyone pony up for a jury of 12 random adults to challenge any law or regulation or action. Put them in individual rooms with a pad of paper, a pen (no erasures), the law or regulation or action in question, and possibly a dictionary. Tell them to write down what they think the law or regulation or action actually means or does or allows or forbids.
Do they all say the same thing? If more than 1 or 2 disagree, throw it out. It is clearly not clear, not understandable.
And if it passes muster, all their notes go on record as to what the law or regulation or action actually means or does. No court or bureaucrat can ever allow any action or consequence outside what those notes allow.
No appeals. Their notes and decision are final. They have the ultimate veto. If Congress or the bureaucrats don't like it, they can repeal the law or regulation, rescind their action, and try again.
Of course there are implementation details. Who selects those 12 jurors? Who compares them all?
But it's the only way government can be tamed.
Congress will never take back their power.
Article V is the only hope for this line of thinking.
Except the President isn't changing the law. Trump is working under Obama-era USDS legislation and funding.
Interestingly enough - you weren't complaining loudly when Biden openly defied the Supreme Court to use more EO's to try to force student-loan 'forgiveness' through.
Still waiting for you guys to show what law was changed or broken.
Brandy, one wonders who you think gave those things to the Executive branch in the first place.
Congress doesn't want to be responsible, and nobody can really force them to do their jobs.
Show us the bodies, Boehm.
He did:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304393219302004
Notwithstanding the different methodological approaches, all measures suggest that uncertainty about trade policy shot up in 2017 and 2018 to levels not seen since the 1970s. We then assess empirically the implications of unexpected increases in trade policy uncertainty on economic activity. Our firm-level estimates suggest that uncertainty about trade policy in 2018 may have lowered aggregate U.S. investment by 1 %. Our aggregate evidence based on VAR analysis points to larger effects.
Again - you keep focusing on the economics of *American* tariffs. You, for some reason, will not talk about Canadian tariffs, nor will you acknowledge the usefulness of tariffs as tools of foreign policy.
And you yell "foreign policy" while denying any harm from the tariffs.
Everything has costs along with the benefits. That you refuse to recognize any costs to tariffs shows your own bias. That you refuse to recognize when your "opponents" recognize benefits, and only harp on their refusal to deify Trump, shows more bias. That you refuse to recognize how little Trump's threats gained shows more bias.
Trump is not the golden haired idol.
Stupid Government Tricks *IS* a TDs-addled lying pile of slimy shit.
And you're dumb enough to live in San Francisco.
Sarc thinks free trade is a one way system. Not even joking. Even after he was given the definition of free trade he persists.
And you persist in thinking that unilateral free trade is surrender. Even given plenty of Econ 101 sources, you persist.
Then there's that whole "trade deficit" malarkey. Foreign investments are the major part of trade deficits, because trade deficits only count goods and services. So if Toyota ships $10B of cars here, sends $8B back to Japan, and invests $2B here, that's a $2B trade deficit. Yet mastermind Trump says he wants to reduce trade deficits AND increase foreign investments, and you cheer.
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
I guess Trump is the smartest guy in the world. Or is that you, for adding a third contradictory idea, that Trump's a genius?
You persist in thinking Jesse is anything other than a shill who argues in bad faith. Fact is that if Trump saw the light and dropped all tariffs, Jesse would suddenly become a free trader. Everything he says is in defense of Trump.
And you persist in thinking that unilateral free trade...
This is an oxymoron. Unilateral free trade is not free trade. It's still restricted trade.
In fairness, most economists agree with the position that unilateral free trade is still a good thing. That's taught in Econ 101 and 102, for sure. What you may not remember from this lesson is that some domestic groups are going to be fucked over by it.
That's little consolation to a U.S. worker who is out of the job because an Indian firm can pay someone a quarter an hour to do a job that's mandated at a minimum wage orders of magnitude larger in the U.S.
That's an example of competition in labor being a disadvantage, since an unemployed U.S. citizen can not afford a cheaper Chinese television at any price as a simple to understand example.
That's where the joke 'learn to code' came from, and we all see how well that advice has aged in the era of AI.
And I'll argue any manipulation of a free market is not a long term advantage and leads to market disruption, see covid.
But yes, this belief unilateral markets is a free market is one of the dumb mistatements by sarc and STG. It largely flows from simplified models from the 1800 libertarianish theorists like bastiat and others, yet in 200 years the data has not shown in the economic data as an advantage from this belief.
I do like hoe sarc and STG think economic theory started 200 years ago and don't see a need to ever get past the simplified models.
Also shows how blind adherence to propaganda and a rebrand of a thought can have detrimental effects on discussion as the two idiots keep claiming unilateral/advantaged markets are free trade even after they admit it is not lol.
Well the common thing that's taught is that the country that engages in free trade, even unilaterally, is the one that benefits. It's import to understand that benefit is on average and doesn't reflect each individuals situation.
It's often ignored or rationalized that there are domestic losers when it happens. That's often handwaved away through the idea that workers can simply find work in some other industry, but that's not a safe assumption. People are not interchangeable units of labor. It's a slow process for labor to change sectors, and with the pace of technological innovation it's an open question if it's going to remain true at all.
If you were, say, a line worker at a factory that was laid off as the factory moved to India and then went on to pursue and obtain a computer science degree only to find that AI had removed those jobs from the market you'd be pretty pissed I'd imagine. Also, to be super clear, not everyone is capable of just 'becoming a coder' which is why I say people are not just interchangeable units of labor. That's an assumption economists make because, well, they have to make those kinds of assumptions since in reality everything is a case-by-case basis and they are looking to generalize.
Those models never discuss or even think about regulatory advantages exacerbating the economic advantage from these deals. Raising the floor cost on one side to make it even more disadvantaged is always ignored.
On top of that those models didn't consider the issue of the welfare state, assuming there are no secondary costs due to labor or market shifts, adding even more cost to the disadvantaged nation. This is why they are simplified models built on assumptions known to be false.
The only way this model theory works is of there is an offshore sue to efficiencies with an available backfil of economic activity to fill in the gap moved offshore. This isn't what is happening. The welfare state continues to grow. Regulatory imbalance continues to grow. Both showing the assumptions and simplified models to be wrong.
It is the same as keyenesian assuming highly efficient monetary transfers to lead to economic growth from government spending. A model built on incorrect assertions.
Instead of realizing the reality of our current situation, sarc/stg just pretend base assumptions proven false are still true.
"Regulatory advantages"?
The hallmark of a statist. Central planning good. Third party bureaucrats know better than the parties with direct skin in the game.
It's often ignored or rationalized that there are domestic losers when it happens
Well this is kind of the whole libertarian thing, isn't it? We don't use the state to protect some individuals over others. I mean DOGE is axing its way through USAID. There's secretaries, janitors, and all sorts of people guilty of no more than taking the best job they could find. Should we worry about these domestic losers?
I've been laid off. It sucks. And I would have welcomed the state stepping in and saving my job, but it's not a practical solution.
Should we worry about these domestic losers?
No, never did before. Why start now?
I’m sorry to hear that QB.
Thanks Designate,
Just in case I gave the wrong impression...I meant in the past, like 15 years ago. I worked for a small pharma company. They were bought by a big pharma company and cut all research at our site.
Oh yeah, I thought you meant recently cause I remembered in the thread about the NIH funding you having concerns about what the cuts could mean.
Yeah, that will take months to shake out. I'm good for now.
There are domestic losers for new products, new fads, and better competition. Does that justify government control of new products, new fads, and competition?
Why are you so desirous of government control? Are you an individualist, a libertarian? Or are you a central planning statist?
I don’t think BYODB is advocating for that. But with the things you listed, pretty much everybody knows and acknowledges that they will displace current business, workers, etc. while in the vast majority of conversations about tariffs, this is rarely acknowledged.
Personally, I don’t understand why this particular consumption tax is a bridge too far that so many people get so bent out of shape over. Especially in light of other taxes and regulations.
Personally, I don’t understand why this particular consumption tax is a bridge too far that so many people get so bent out of shape over. Especially in light of other taxes and regulations.
Find any tax that has libertarians/conservatives here defending it and I think you’ll find the same commenters and fervor opposed. We're all in agreement in opposition to the rest so no need to be so vocal
Ad hominem much? The argument is bad because sarc and SRG support it? So much for rational discussion.
You are wrong about 200 years of economic data. Google for it, it's all over that unilateral free trade is more efficient and productive. BYODB says the same before bringing up a non-sequitor:
And talk about "blind adherence to propaganda and a rebrand of a thought"! You can't even admit that Trump is an idiot for thinking he can lower trade deficits and raise for investment at the same time! You're so fixated on Trump the idol with the golden head that you don't dare admit he could be wrong about such a basic definition.
The argument is bad because sarc and SRG support it?
Dammit! I'm already out? I don't even fit in with the outcasts? Story of my life.
I hope you don’t slip to the point where you get muted. It’s like being in hell!
Then you don't understand basic language. "Free trade" isn't cost-free, it's restraint-free, and can indeed be restraint-free in just one direction.
Workers get fucked over all the time by competitors, new products, changing styles. That doesn't justify government restricting trade between individuals. That you don't want me to trade with Chinese companies is your problem, not mine. That you resort to government thugs because your arguments fail to persuade me is a sign of weak arguments, not moral right.
I've address both with my references.
Tariffs can be useful for foreign policy, but are in general more harmful than good.
https://www.ft.com/content/9d48a9d1-d699-4dbb-9978-77b81157db20
US prices for copper, steel, aluminum rapidly going up as people try to gobble up as much as they can prior to 25% tariffs being levied.
Its not covid level toilet paper hoarding yet. But speculators and others will jump in to f with the market more thinking they can make a quick buck while prices remain volatile.
Damned capitalist system!
"TRRRRUUUUUUUUMP!"
"You were supposed to do the thing we warned you not to! Now my fifty alarmist articles look stupid."
No mother effing kidding. This is so far beyond TDS. If they published this horseshit at MSNBC, the editors there would end up pulling it down an apologizing.
Holy Fvckin fvck
I am unable to even at this present time
The only ones uncertain about the results of Trump's policies weren't around for his first term.
The only ones who think the results of such whiplash actions are good are those who have never planned a thing in their life beyond "fries or onion rings?"
What about Canada's 'whiplash actions'?
What of it? Are you Canadian? Is Trump?
You scream bloody murder because Canada's actions hurt the US. It's immoral! Yet you love that Trump sticks his nose into Canadian business.
Stop being such a damned fool hypocrite.
Stop being such a TDS-addled lying pile of shit.
Stop living in San Francisco where all you see is piles of steaming shit.
The only ones who think the results of such whiplash actions are good are those who have never planned a thing in their life beyond "fries or onion rings?"
Which does make past Congresses look eminently retarded in hindsight, and should make one question the sanity of the current Congress that could do something about it right now today if they so choose.
In fact I'd consider it a good thing if they did, and I rarely come to that conclusion.
Eric, are these costs reluctant or strategic?
It's called "Regime Uncertainty", and it was one of the major contributors to the longevity of the Great Depression. Not new under Trump, FDR had it long before him. But yeah, Trump being just like FDR.
Businesses cannot act if they have no idea if their supply chains will even exist tomorrow, if their acquisitions will be declared illegal tomorrow, if their legal hires will have their visas revoked tomorrow, what is legal today will be forbidden... tomorrow.
Rule by Whim is a terrible way to rule if one insists on being a ruler. Even Monarchs need to be limited and restrained. But we shouldn't even have monarchs in the country. Time to get rid of executive orders. Congress needs to start doing its job again, start being a check on the executive again. No kings, no masters.
It's part of the plan. Create so much uncertainty about foreign supply chains that companies just have *no choice* but to source everything domestically.
What plan? I thought POTUS Trump and his supporters were stupid cultists, and idiots. We've heard that non-stop for a decade now.
But he actually had a plan?! Who knew?
chemjeff knows.
"IT'S A PLAN FOR UNCERTAINTY!!!1!!"
Muh planned economy
Why are you not complaining about Canada's tariffs?
I'm not so sure regime uncertainty extended the great depression versus policies that could only extend the great depression being enacted, but perhaps we just have different views on that.
Protectionist and negotiating tool at the same time.
Can Reason even get through the first sentence without lying?
Trump tells Canada and Mexico what needs to happen because their actions are fucking over the US citizens. They tell him to fuck off. He says "fuck me? Fuck you!" and enforces it with a tariff threat. They make noises that they are backing down.
Markets can read and react to these things better than shitty journalists in their attempts to twist events to their dogma. However it is still true that too many dumbasses panic over media propaganda and create an impact.
Bottom line, journalists need to be honest brokers.
Can you even write a comment without being a hypocrite?
Since when is it any of Canada's business what US laws (try to) do?
Ohhh wait! I got that backwards.
Since when is it any of the US's business what Canadian laws (try to) do?
When David Eby and Trudeau's fucking bills and "safe supply" policies are not only poisoning Canadians with government fentanyl, but the lion's share of it is getting shipped to the states while Trudeau winks at it, I think it becomes the US's business.
When it affects the people of the other country, slimy pile of TDS-addled shit.
This is a bad subject for you, you should avoid it.
Boehm's not so reluctant blather....how much USAID money was Reason getting?
>>One CEO says
is a quote from one person better or worse than Katie Couric's Some of "Some say ..." fame?
It's just inserting a middle man. The US needs foreign steel and aluminum. If the US can't import it from the cheapest source, other countries will import it from there and then sell it to the US, passing the costs along to all of us.
Either the market is dynamic enough to adapt on the spot, or dynamism was always a mirage.
Well the markets are up today after Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs so if it's priced in it's not exactly a disaster. I don't like these tariffs much but they are part of a larger plan that includes increased domestic energy production, aggressive deregulation and tax cuts. It could be a colossal failure or a huge success but the status quo sucks so I'm willing to go along for the ride.
All these 2nd career economists like Boehm, comms major, treat economics like a first order linear model which chaotic systems are not.
Lets pretend China declared war on Taiwan tomorrow. What might that do to markets that rely on Chinese trade?
Well, probably nothing since the entire planet would just say 'Sure, Taiwan has always been a part of China.'
We've actually been the beneficiary of that for quite some time in the United States, and now that the shoe is starting to look like it's on the other foot maybe we're starting to see the flaws in that.
Except Taiwan is also a major supplier in trade. Giving China more control of industry and raising supply chain risk costs even more.
Boehm, Canada, Mexico, etc have all threatened to stand up tariffs in response to American tariffs. Why are American tariffs uniquely bad but you don't want to talk about counter-tariffs?
Is it because that would distract from the constant bleating about tariffs as bad economics and make people start to ask if they're useful as tools of foreign policy?
Isn't part of the reason that tariffs are bad foreign policy precisely because the other countries feel the need to impose retaliatory tariffs? Which in turn could cause the original tariff maker to increase it; inviting yet more retaliatory tariffs?
Trump's targeting of Canada in specific is a good example. Canada's liberals were on the way to being potentially trounced in the expected upcoming elections but Trump's big mouth and tariff proposals may have united that country against him. So Canada's conservatives may now do worse than expected. I think the calling for Canada to be USA's 51st state was the big blunder here...but its not de-coupled from the tariff threat because if they did become the 51st state, "no more tariffs" according to Trump. If a conservative govt in Canada was a policy goal of this administration, they may have just fkd it all up.
The other countries already have tariffs dumdum. Including the ones under "free trade agreements" which are just negotiated caps and tariffs.
Something people like sarc fail to understand.
"...Canada's liberals were on the way to being potentially trounced in the expected upcoming elections but Trump's big mouth and tariff proposals may have united that country against him..."
Lefty shits live active fantasy lives, don't they?
One CEO says the uncertainty created by Trump's chaotic trade policies is "reminiscent of the adjustments we had to make during Covid-19."
I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of those adjustments you had to make during COVID-19 were government-imposed vs self-inflicted.
And the percentage of those costs realized as supply chain risk from offshoring manufacturing.
I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of those adjustments you had to make during COVID-19 were government-imposed vs self-inflicted.
"Not so fast there Mr. Big Balls, we're going to need to see your security clearance first." - Reason
So there we have it. The argument for Trump’s policies is “You didn’t complain when Democrats did it.”
Poor sarc. No new ideas™ .
And here we have Sarcasmic presenting us with his daily, typical, tired strawman.
At least sarc gained a new best friend this morning.
Say Sarc, YOU didn’t complain when Democrats did it, so why do you think it's okay for you to bitch about it now?
You're such a fucking hypocrite.
He truly is a stupid, loathsome creature.
Hmm. Priced in?
https://www.zerohedge.com/precious-metals/futures-dollar-rise-gold-soars-after-trumps-latest-tariff-salvo
US equity futures are higher, led by Tech as investors largely ignored tariff headlines, in this case the 25% tariffs on steel/aluminum which were announced yesterday, and which will predominantly impact both Canada and Mexico. As of 8:00am ET, S&P futures are 0.5% higher, reversing half of Friday's drop as the tariff news lifted American metals stocks, with US Steel Corp. surging as much as 15% in premarket. Alcoa Corp. rallied 5%. Nasdaq futures are up 0.6%, with Mag7 names all higher ex-TSLA with Semis and Financials catching a bid. Bond yields are mostly unchanged with USD higher. Commodities are seeing strength across the entire complex with gold’s record run continuing, now above $2900. Today’s macro data focus is on the NY Fed’s 1-year inflation expectation given the hotter print on Friday from Univ of Mich; CPI is on Weds.
Carr is CEO of World Emblem, the Florida-based business that is the world's largest manufacturer of emblems and patches. The company has also suspended plans to hire new employees. The disruptions, Carr says, are "reminiscent of the adjustments we had to make during Covid-19.
First of all, what tariff's specifically impact emblem and patches? My guess is they are made oversea's by children? It's unclear how this impacts his business in particular since, at least for patches, they are thread and glue mostly.
Second of all, comparing tariff's to COVID era supply chain issues is obvious hyperbole. 'Reminiscent ' is doing a fuck load of lifting there. Plus, even if true, presumably he got through COVID when things just weren't being made at any price so one presumes he'll do fine now that hey are being made again at some price.
"..."We have had to suspend every [capital expenditure] project we have for the next 24 months until we better understand the trade situation," Randy Carr told Bloomberg. Carr is CEO of World Emblem, the Florida-based business that is the world's largest manufacturer of emblems and patches. The company has also suspended plans to hire new employees. The disruptions, Carr says, are "reminiscent of the adjustments we had to make during Covid-19."..."
Uh, an emblem manufacturer, who claims to put capital ?! No fan of Trump's tariffs (if they ever become such), but this is the best you got?
An emblem mfg suspending (un-named) capital investments for 24 months?! And not making (supposed) new hires?!
FFS.
* a hold on capital expenditures*
Libertarians for planned economies?
The economic uncertainty created by Trump's tariff threats has already warped markets and harmed the economy in ways large and small.
Rerouting the airplane may result in turbulence.
Better than crashing through, am I right?