Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful."

After decades of shouting into the void that free trade is good, those of us in the "eliminate tariffs, embrace comparative advantage, and let me buy my haggis-flavored chips online without an import tax" crowd are experiencing something that hasn't happened in a while: new friends. Things have been especially lonely in recent years, as the right veered away from offering even lip service to free trade while the left coasted on the fumes of its union-driven protectionist past.

But a recent poll from the Polarization Research Lab shows those same lefties making a sudden and striking turn. At the start of 2024, liberals and conservatives were nearly identical in their lukewarm support for unrestricted trade—about 20 percent each in favor. Following President Donald Trump's electoral win and renewed protectionist rhetoric, liberal support has more than doubled to over 40 percent.

Some analysts see this as classic negative partisanship: Democrats embracing
trade mostly because Trump doesn't. Others—such as the lab's director, Sean Westwood—argue the shift is pragmatic rather than tribal: an economic reaction to market instability and broader uncertainty, not just a red vs. blue reflex. Either way, the political winds around trade are blowing harder than ever, and not always with reasoned consistency.

In the same breath, Americans have told Harvard CAPS/Harris pollsters that they love free trade (84 percent support it!) and also that they think tariffs are necessary to protect U.S. jobs (66 percent agree). This cognitive dissonance is often rationalized by imagining tariffs as a clever bit of short-term gamesmanship—leverage to force other countries, particularly China, to lower their barriers. But Trump didn't run on a strategic, time-
limited tariff plan; he ran on permanent economic nationalism. Despite the populist bluster, the same poll finds only 45 percent of Americans actually approve of his tariff agenda and just 41 percent back his inflation record.

While tariffs may not look ruinous in the macro—imports amount to only about 11 percent of American GDP—their ripple effects are real, jacking up domestic prices and scrambling supply chains in ways that make the economy feel chaotic even when the top-line numbers don't scream crisis yet.

This isn't the first time Americans have professed support for free trade while simultaneously endorsing protectionist measures. A 2024 Cato Institute/YouGov survey conducted while Joe Biden was still president highlighted this contradiction: While 63 percent of respondents favored increasing trade with other nations, a significant portion also supported tariffs on specific products, such as blue jeans, to boost domestic production. Yet this support waned when potential price increases were introduced into the poll questions: If the tariffs brought a $10 price hike, 66 percent were opposed. While the public may appreciate the abstract benefits of free trade, their support may be contingent on immediate economic impacts, particularly price sensitivity.

Today's newfound support for free trade seems to be less about discovering Adam Smith and more about discovering that protectionism might cost you your job at the chip fab, your vacation to Cabo, or your sweet deal on Amazon Basics. As The Washington Post recently reported, Republican primary voters seem increasingly wary of Trump's economic nationalism—not because they've seen the light on global economic cooperation, but because they're worried about the price tag. Meanwhile, Democrats are suddenly remembering that globalist wasn't always a slur.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, figures like Richard Cobden and Jane Addams championed free trade as a means to promote global harmony and social progress. But over time, this perspective shifted, with modern left-leaning factions viewing free trade with skepticism, often corresponding with the rise of labor politics in the modern era. National conservatism has pushed hostility to trade back into the conversation on the right, though Trump's degree of fondness for tariffs seems to be somewhat sui generis.

This history underscores the fluidity of political alignments around trade—and the long-term importance of grounding support in consistent principles rather than transient political and economic conditions.

Let's be clear: If you just decided that tariffs are bad because Trump is for them and you're against Trump, or because your
401(k) is being battered by the inflationary effects of the trade war you once half-heartedly supported, welcome! Hop in the back seat. We're glad you're here. But the reason American trade policy has strayed so dangerously off course is because too many people became pro-trade only when it became politically expedient—or emotionally satisfying—to be so.

The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful." Tariffs are just taxes in sheep's clothing—dressed up as patriotism, but fundamentally designed to pick your pocket. They don't protect American workers; they protect politically favored industries from having to innovate, improve, or compete. Every time you pay more for a washing machine or a beer because of a tariff, you're experiencing crony capitalism with a red, white, and blue bow on top.

Free trade, by contrast, is capitalism at its most honest: voluntary exchange across borders that leaves both parties
better off. It doesn't require central planning, special favors, or a government agency to decide which industries are "strategic." It just works. And for those of us who never stopped saying so, even during the dark NAFTA-hating days of the Trump/Biden tariff continuum, the principle remains: The freer the trade, the better the world.

If you're ready to get serious about dismantling the tariffs that strangle global exchange, grab a seat. (Or in the immortal words of Mean Girls: "Get in, loser. We're going shopping.") But if you're just here to score points in the tribal partisan war of the moment, don't expect us to hand over the aux cord. You can sit with us and listen—but the playlist is Milton Friedman, Frédéric Bastiat, and David Ricardo. And we're playing it on repeat.

Comments

[Vernon Depner]

Try offering reciprocal tariff-free trade with any country that wants it. I guarantee you no major country will take that deal.

[sarcasmic]

He's lying you dumb fuck. How many times have you Trump defenders said to ignore what he says and look at what he does? Well, looking at what has done it's pretty obvious that he wants some baseline tariffs of some sort, no matter who the trading partner is, as well as targeted protective tariffs for politically favored industries. That's what he's done. What he says is a lie.

[SIV]

4D chess. Who was the last president to acknowledge the virtue of unilateral free trade?

[Rossami]

Eh, I'm not so sure. Argentina would probably jump at it right now. And when their economic success became too obvious to ignore, others would eventually follow along.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

You dear sweet summer child, assuming economic success rather than opportunities for grift are what motivates the Leviathan class.

[DesigNate]

With Milei at the helm, Rossami might be right about Argentina agreeing to 0 (or at least lower) tariffs.

[Social Justice is neither]

The problem that utopian view runs into is that for the local politician the local, concentrated benefits outweigh the general and diffuse costs of the public at large (let alone the costs borne by non-constituents).

[Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025]

“The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful."”

I’m confused. I thought that American trade policy was for the benefit of Americans first. Not so, according to KMW. Apparently she subscribes to the idea of the ‘global citizen’.

[MWAocdoc]

It's not "either or" although your limited mentality may not be able to comprehend that complexity. Free trade may benefit almost all Americans directly and indirectly, while failing to specifically benefit a vested interest like unions or corporate political donors.

[sarcasmic]

Tariffs have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. The concentrated benefits like union workers and political donors making money are easy to see. What is not easy to see or measure is consumers being nickeled and dimed to death by price increases resulting from high import taxes. So, like good little leftists, Trump defenders point to the the benefits and refuse to acknowledge that the diffused costs exist. I need to add that to the list of things Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate.

[Neutral not Neutered]

First off American manufactured products using American raw materials will not change in price.

If you previously Bought American then you should see no price increase.

If you buy Made in America products that are manufactured with imported raw materials or components then the price will increase but only a small amount pending what the product is.

Buying these items keeps American jobs in tact and provides the highest level of tax revenue to the US government.

These are the most beneficial products to purchase for America. This can't be argued.

As this article notes and so many people are being gaslit into believing is that tariffs are a tax on American people. This is incorrect.

Tariffs are a way to increase US gov revenue for products sold in the US that were not made there and did not generate any of the revenue for America as noted above.

If these products simply enter the US and are sold then they bring the least impact to the US economy as the importer will pay taxes on the profits they make from importing and the retailer will pay taxes on the product sales. There's a few jobs involved but minimal compared to products complete manufactured in America.

I guess people have to ask the question and find the balance between driving your economy, having jobs and the security of the products made in your country or if paying less for a product is more important.

Of course supply chain issues as seen with Covid are a real problem. Especially for certain products that we can't do without. And what if you go to war with the country you are importing important products from and there is no other source?

Does the fact that unsafe work practices and worse, slavery, not turn people's opinions toward willing to pay more for a product made in the USA knowing they are benefitting their country and not others?

Yes it's a balance. I am sure no one will complain about Hoola Hoops being imported from china now cost $4.25 versus $3.00 last year. And no one in America is willing to work under the table in a sweat shop for $3.00/hr so Hoola Hoops could be made in America for $3.00 either.

Since products entering the country provide the least tax revenue for a country, adding a tariff can help balance the loss of not manufacturing that product in your own country.

The idea that an American First agenda is supposed to benefit the world and not America is idiotic.

These reporters and people whining because America is now going to increase it's revenues by applying tariffs to products and try to force some of these products to be manufactured in the US versus somewhere else that the supply can be shut off in the blink of an eye from are very shallow thinkers.

[Quicktown Brix]

As this article notes and so many people are being gaslit into believing is that tariffs are a tax on American people. This is incorrect.

The US government is collecting money. Who do you think is paying it?

I guess people have to ask the question and find the balance between driving your economy, having jobs and the security of the products made in your country or if paying less for a product is more important.

No. The central planners will decide for you.

[Neutral not Neutered]

First off. Some businesses will absorb the tariff and not add it into the product price.

You are acting like prices or going to go up as they did under Biden. No the amount of inflation caused by the tariffs will not amount to the increases seen under Biden.

And no products made in America now will have a price increase.

This whole exercise is part of the America First Agenda. So buy American, support your country, your economy, American workers.

And if you don't and buy cheap imported products that do not support America, then you will pay a bit more now so you do help support America a little bit.

Do you love your country or not?

[sarcasmic]

First off. Some businesses will absorb the tariff and not add it into the product price.

They're still paying it, and they're Americans. Let's do some math though. Let's say a company has a 3% profit margin and now they're paying an additional 25% import tax on most of the stuff they sell. Let's see. 25% is a lot higher than 3%. But they're just going to absorb it? Not seeing it.

You are acting like prices or going to go up as they did under Biden. No the amount of inflation caused by the tariffs will not amount to the increases seen under Biden.

If you were to plot prices over time, the slope of the curve is the inflation rate. What tariffs do is shift the curve upwards. They're a one-time jump, not a continuous increase.

And no products made in America now will have a price increase.

Sure they will. If the import is priced at $20 without the tariff and $30 with it, and the 'made in America' product is priced at $25, the seller of the 'made in America' product can comfortably raise the price and still compete.

This whole exercise is part of the America First Agenda. So buy American, support your country, your economy, American workers.

This whole exercise is protectionism/mercantilism which was soundly debunked two and a half centuries ago. It's based upon willful ignorance of economics. And this "support" does not come without a cost. It requires that everyone (except those union workers and politically connected businesses) be a little poorer because now their paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to.

And if you don't and buy cheap imported products that do not support America, then you will pay a bit more now so you do help support America a little bit.

If you use tariffs to raise the price of imports and encourage American companies to do things where they are not at a comparative advantage, then you are creating opportunity costs. You're making everyone in America poorer as a result.

Do you love your country or not?

Mark Twain said that patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. I support my country. I do not support Trump's tariffs.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Didn't you want corporations to pay their fair share, billionaires, people in general?

Do the underprivileged by Mercedes?

Sorry but Biden's inflation was a one shot slam everyone without remorse because of abhorrent spending policies that did not benefit the people i any way shape or form.

Are you attempting to suggest that the tariffs are going to force the costs of living in America to climb 20%? That is ridiculous.

[sarcasmic]

Didn't you want corporations to pay their fair share, billionaires, people in general?

They pay a lot. What does "fair share" mean anyway? To leftists it means that they pay until they're not rich anymore. Are you agreeing with leftists?

Sorry but Biden's inflation was a one shot slam everyone without remorse because of abhorrent spending policies that did not benefit the people i any way shape or form.

Biden's inflation was caused by the spending that happened while he was president. The bulk of the inflation was caused by the single biggest domestic aid package in the history of the world, which was enthusiastically signed by Trump.

Are you attempting to suggest that the tariffs are going to force the costs of living in America to climb 20%? That is ridiculous.

Nope. No one said that. However those import taxes have to be paid by someone, and that someone is the consumer.

When Democrats raise taxes on businesses, I'm sure you understand that that's just another cost that gets folded into the price of what they sell. Why is it that Trump's import taxes, which are taxes on businesses, are somehow different? Magic? Intentions?

Guess I'll add that to the list. Leftists raise taxes on businesses and expect them to eat it, and Trumpians do as well.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Sorry but you are wrong, Trump Covid spending obviously impacted the debt. The deficit increase due to the DNC shutdowns reducing revenue. However the inflation never started until Biden IRA was signed. This is fact.

[Quicktown Brix]

First off. Some businesses will absorb the tariff and not add it into the product price.

In this case, American businesses are paying the tax.

You are acting like prices or going to go up as they did under Biden. No the amount of inflation caused by the tariffs will not amount to the increases seen under Biden.

What? How? I asked who pays the tax since you claimed it's not a tax on Americans.

And no products made in America now will have a price increase.

Instead, you pay the unions and bureaucrats.

This whole exercise is part of the America First Agenda. So buy American, support your country, your economy, American workers.

So? I prefer freedom.

Do you love your country or no

It's OK. I mean, it's a nice chunk of dirt in a good location with a bunch of assholes living in it with a huge government running a world empire spending itself into ruin so...

[Neutral not Neutered]

Okay you can't have it all. Well actually, even if you did have it all you'd probably still cry about something.

But nonetheless yes the businesses are paying the US government directly for products imported. I am sure these products are still cheap in the whole scheme of things, or they would not be importing them. And this does not mean the product they make will have a price increase to the consumer.

WTF is this BS about paying unions and bureaucrats? Seriously? You don't want jobs in America? What percentage of US jobs are union versus non union? Do you want to reduce the size of government so then there's less bureaucrats and less money required to pay them?

Freedom? Hard to have freedom without a job.

[Zeb]

I'm curious what you think "freedom" means.

[Quicktown Brix]

First, i appreciate your polite demeanor and that you are arguing on facts and logic and mostly steering clear of insults. We can be friendly even if we disagree, right? I have enough haters already anyway.

WTF is this BS about paying unions and bureaucrats? Seriously?

Yes. A big reason American made products are more expensive than imports is because US workers are paid more, partly because of unions. Another big reason is regulations, which necessitate the bureaucratic state.

What percentage of US jobs are union versus non union?

I don't know, but the rate is relatively high in manufacturing.

Do you want to reduce the size of government so then there's less bureaucrats and less money required to pay them?

Yes, this is exactly what I want. Tariffs are regulations processed and enforced by bureaucrats, but they are not the only regulations I'd like to see removed. I'm only very vocal about tariffs now because they're new and not yet immovable.

Freedom? Hard to have freedom without a job.

I don't get your logic on this point.

[MWAocdoc]

"These are the most beneficial products to purchase for America. This can't be argued."

Whenever you make an assertion that "can't be argued" you are automatically wrong. But in this case you're wrong twice because you have not defined beneficial so that it justifies the costs in any way. And you win the Triple Crown here because it's not even true that buying American goods at higher prices to maintain higher wages for fewer workers is beneficial for anyone except the union bosses.

[Neutral not Neutered]

You created false equivalencies trying to prove me wrong.

Do you like having a job or do you think you can not have a job and buy the product imported from another country?

Again all these comments about Unions. What percentage of jobs in America and Union versus non union?

"And you win the Triple Crown here because it's not even true that buying American goods at higher prices to maintain higher wages for fewer workers is beneficial for anyone except the union bosses."

^^^ This is nonsensical, perhaps re read it until you realize it and then try to write the sentence where it means something.

[sarcasmic]

Do you like having a job or do you think you can not have a job and buy the product imported from another country?

False dichotomy. The economy is not a zero-sum game. There is not a fixed number of jobs. Protecting jobs where America is at a competitive disadvantage prevents the creation of jobs where the nation is at a comparative advantage. It's called opportunity cost. If you knew anything at all about economics you would understand that.

Again all these comments about Unions. What percentage of jobs in America and Union versus non union?

Trump is a union man, and he's the one making a big deal about saving union jobs. Big Steel. Murkin Cars. You know, union jobs.

[Incunabulum]

KMW, the only thing you have in common with the anti-Trump 'liberals' is hating Trump.

Every single one of them will support what Trump is doing as soon as a Democrat is doing it.

I mean, FFS, YOU did not care about due process when Obama was throwing people out of the country. None of those people cared about war as soon as Obama was in office.

[5.56]

The republicans are toast.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

5.56
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.

[Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025]

And everyone loves toast.

Now fuck off KAR, m’kay?

[MasterThief]

Let's be clear here. She doesn't care about free trade either. She cares about her cheap shit and wealthy imported indulgences. Reason has gone hard on supporting progressivess and Ezra Klein's fake pandering abundance agenda. A half competent person would see it's the same global authoritarian power seeking exercise, but they're putting the thinnest veneer of respecting fair trade to sell it to fake libertarians like Reason. What a fucking joke.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

This.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

The “anti-war” movement got raptured away the moment Obama was elected.

[bye]

So you are saying the real support is only seeming support.
DO we have historical data, because that must be the case most of the time. EG Salena Zito's findings that many Trump supporters were just newly-formed HIllary Haters.

[TJJ2000]

"Tariffs are just taxes in sheep's clothing"
And Trump has *Tax*-Cut in exchange for raising Tariffs.

Literally putting some resemblance of a balanced taxation there.

Yet every Democrat will praise raising Taxes, curse Trumps Tax-Cuts, Shame raising Tariffs all in the same hypocritical breath. Their out-of-no-where "Free Trade" stance is 100% Anti-Trump or 100% Anti-USA and everyone knows it.

You can't honorably support taxing domestic manufacturing as-high as 85% and then scream 'protectionist' when your import business goes from 0% to 30% tax. The only 'protectionist' going on is on the imports market.

The recent "free trade" band-wagon is soooo biased-lopsided (domestic v imports) if it was a ship it would've already sunk by the head. Oh wait; yeah that's exactly what USA productivity has done.

[damikesc]

It is almost cute that KMW actually thinks they oppose TARIFFS and not that TRUMP is implementing them.

[MasterThief]

She doesn't believe it. She's just helping her team lie to gain power.

[Mickey Rat]

"Surely these scorpions will not sting me."

[Rossami]

Did you even bother reading the article? Of course, she thinks that they are for free-trade because they oppose Trump. Her hope (which is obvious from the article) is that this gives us a window to convert at least some of them into true free-traders who might retain that view even after the administration changes.

[mad.casual]

The idea that the "no borders, free trade" ideologues belong to some sort of club to welcome and/or ingratiate outsiders into is... interesting(?)

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

"Her hope (which is obvious from the article) is that this gives us a window to convert at least some of them into true free-traders who might retain that view even after the administration changes."

If you invite a bunch of whores into your home, hoping your example will lead them to chastity, you'll just end up owning a brothel.

Poor analogy I know, because in almost every case it's the Reasonistas who are whoring out their principles instead, but you get the drift.

[Zeb]

People do change their minds sometimes. Might as well try to convince people to change their views.

[Social Justice is neither]

Yes as seen by the rapid shift of Reason writers towards every last progressive cause and talking point. Sorry, but it isn't the anti-Trump Marxists that are going to change but a further drift away from libertarianism.

[sarcasmic]

Libertarians didn't leave the GOP. Trump's Republican Party, with their disdain for economic liberty, personal liberty, and basic human dignity, left libertarians. Not just left, but ran away screaming as if their dicks were on fire.

[Neutral not Neutered]

LMFAO. Sorry but this is wrong. If you are suggesting Libertarians would run to the extreme left DNC and it's authoritarianism and censorship, I think we will pay a little more and stick with Trump and the GOP thanks.

[sarcasmic]

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. Though Trump defenders totally support authoritarianism and censorship, as long as Trump is doing it. What I am suggesting is that libertarians support liberty, while Trump's Republican Party abhors it. Before Trump the GOP did at least support economic liberty, and that is what the libertarian-Republican alliance was based upon. But now Trump's Republicans have retreated to economic ideas that were debunked over two centuries ago, and that has broken that alliance.

[Ersatz]

Though Trump defenders totally support authoritarianism and censorship, as long as Trump is doing it.

Hey - if he's doing it to undo the wildly out of proportion abuses created, supported and institutionalized by the progressive lefty D's and their toadies in the judiciary, govt etc... then I am for a limited
- dictator on day 1 - type correction of the political sanity market.

[sarcasmic]

"Trump will smite the people I hate, so that makes him a good dictator."

[DesigNate]

“Libertarians” have been making a concerted effort to court and woo leftists and democrats since at least Obama, demonizing anyone who even leaned a little right (you were here for their absolute hatred of Ron Paul and their picking on Rand when he first entered the scene).

[sarcasmic]

I don't recall them hating on the Pauls.

[Zeb]

Even Marxists change their minds sometimes. And not every left-leaner is a Marxist.
I say this to leftists who miss the point all the time: not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are stupid, evil or dishonest. People arrive at their beliefs for all kinds of reasons and it is stupid to assume that your opponents are all of one mind about everything.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

What Reason supports isn't free trade based on their articles. They support managed trade and unilateral trade. They claim the system just last year was a free trade market. It was not. Never has been.

[sarcasmic]

2022: BIDENFLATION IS KILLING AMERICA!!!!

2025: If you like cheap stuff then you hate America.

What's really sad and childish about this whole thing is that Trumpians will unite against free trade if Democrats embrace it, simply because they reflexively oppose anything Democrats support. Doesn't matter what it is. If Democrats flipped on abortion then Trumpians would become pro-choice.

[Don't look at me! (Not signed with autopen)]

Things are so simple in sarcasia.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

And stupid...
Really, really stupid.

[Otto Penn, American President 2021-2025]

40 years of extreme alcohol abuse have simplified that dried up little walnut he calls a brain.

[Dillinger]

>>Otto Penn

dude I have not stopped lol'ing.

[Neutral not Neutered]

You have it backwards. It's the DNC and Anti Trump hate that have some people acting like lunatics, abandoning common sense and principles and policies they championed only a year ago...

[Longtobefree]

"it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful."

Yep. Nothing makes us safer of freer than not being able to manufacture our own weapons because we don't have the materials or facilities.
But then, you are speaking as a globalist, not as an American.

[damikesc]

COVID showed how wonderful that line of thinking went. Once multiple governments decide they want to REALLY run the show, your supply of cheap shit gets reduced immensely.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

America can't manufacture enough weapons for our defense? We are the worlds largest weapons exporter in the world.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

With Chinese chipboards.

[Zeb]

And it's impossible to start producing or import from another country the stuff we get from China?

[sarcasmic]

Sure it's possible. But there's an opportunity cost for doing so.

[Zeb]

I mean in the case where trading with China really does become impractical.

[sarcasmic]

Most manufacturing in this country involves babysitting machines. That means workers very productive because machines are churning out lots of stuff. Much of the goods that we import require much more labor. That means workers are less productive. To produce what we import would require shifting from high worker productivity to low worker productivity. And where are those workers going to come from? Assuming they've already got jobs, what are they not going to do? What industries would be have to give up in order to make what we import? Those are things that no one ever asks or answers when talking about "bringing jobs back to America".

[sarcasmic]

How can that be? Trump defenders claim that we don't make anything here anymore, so we certainly aren't exporting anything because you can't export what you don't make. That's why they want to make American great again. To them America isn't great, and won't be great until we're more like China.

[Social Justice is neither]

Funny how you don't give a shit about other countries levying tariffs on the US or couldn't be bothered to rail against Biden's protectionist tariffs but now applying pressure to push for free trade is out of bounds in any form beyond a sternly worded letter? Fuck off with that globalist Marxist agenda.

[sarcasmic]

So true. Reason ran dozens of articles criticizing Biden's tariffs, and none of them exist because they contradict the narrative.

As far as other countries forcing their people to pay high import taxes goes, how fair is it that they get to pay high taxes and you don't? That's not fair at all! To make things fair we need Trump to decree that we pay high taxes too! We must demand that Trump, by diktat, without legislation, representation or debate, bless us with the biggest single tax hike in American history! Oh wait, he already did! Praise be to Trump and higher taxes!

You Trumpians are braindead morons.

[TJJ2000]

Trump did Tax-Cuts... UR the only braindead moron here.

[sarcasmic]

You are too stupid to understand that Americans pay tariffs, not foreigners.

You are too stupid to understand that the Trump dictating taxes is a direct violation of the Constitution that you claim to cherish, but are too stupid to understand.

And you are too stupid to understand that Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike in American history.

You're got no grounds to call anyone a braindead anything. You're one of the dumbest people I've ever met in my entire life.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""And you are too stupid to understand that Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike in American history.""

This is the sort of projection vs wait and see Bessent is referring to.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/donald-trump-s-treasury-secretary-has-the-last-laugh-as-he-tears-apart-cbs-host-s-question-on-inflation/ar-AA1FTYXE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=7daa91aaa5b345eea4450c6a6a4eadb7&ei=17

The tariff and the amount we pay is not a 1:1 relationship. Something many people have tried to point out to you.

[BYODB]

'What China is doing is they are holding back products that are essential for the industrial supply chains of India, of Europe, and that is not what a reliable partner does,' Bessent said.

Yeah, and Bessent is entirely correct here about what's been going on. China is not only unreliable, but they are hugely unethical on top of that and trading with unethical and unreliable trade partners is foolish. Especially when that trade partner is eyeballing nearby nations and the South China sea for 'acquisition' which puts them on a collision course with American interests.

Also, and I say this a lot, you can't have free trade with an authoritarian nation. It's not possible. People seem to understand that when the nation is, say, North Korea but for some reason when it comes to China they suddenly don't see it anymore.

[sarcasmic]

Also, and I say this a lot, you can't have free trade with an authoritarian nation.

Then the US can't have free trade with anyone, being that this is an authoritarian nation. What else do you call it when the president can dictate tax policies, disappear people off the streets, ignore the law, the Constitution and the courts, while tens of millions of sycophants like yourself genuflect to him.

[TJJ2000]

All brought to you by Democrats NOT Trump.
Another braindead TDS moronic statement.

Everyone keeps telling you this with proof over and over again and all you do is play STUPID and IGNORANT endlessly.

While you run around Self-Projecting calling everyone else stupid and ignorant and accusing them of what you wishfully think they think instead of what they've said. The only person you're angry at is yourself but too stupid and ignorant to acknowledge it.

[sarcasmic]

Can someone who speaks Retard translate his comment into English?

[Dillinger]

self-reflection may help to enhance your interpretation of ongoing conversations and improve your responses?

[DesigNate]

Nobody has been “disappeared off the street”.

[mad.casual]

China is not only unreliable, but they are hugely unethical on top of that and trading with unethical and unreliable trade partners is foolish. Especially when that trade partner is eyeballing nearby nations and the South China sea for 'acquisition' which puts them on a collision course with American interests.

And it should be noted that a not-insignificant fraction of this same domestic market specifically supports this dishonesty and tomfoolery in advancement of the specific aims. They specifically want the US Government to exercise greater domestic and social control; mandatory federal-level abortions, mandatory federal-level gun control, mandatory federal-level $600 transaction monitoring, mandatory federal-level compulsory service/public accommodations... and they don't care if the Chinese or Ukrainians or Russians enslave their own people to make it happen.

[Mother's Lament - (Sarc's a Nazi, not even joking)]

"And you are too stupid to understand that Trump's tariffs were the largest tax hike in American history."

Except they aren't and they weren't. Tariffs aren't taxes because you can choose not to pay them. No tax is voluntary, retard.

[Zeb]

There are lots of taxes that you can choose not to pay by not buying particular products or services or not owning certain types of property.

[sarcasmic]

Need a car? You're paying tariffs.

Want to build a home? You're paying tariffs.

Like electronics? You're paying tariffs.

Don't want to get arrested for walking around naked? You're paying tariffs.

Want to eat something that isn't in season or grown in the US? You're paying tariffs.

So many things are either imported or made with imported material/parts that it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to avoid paying tariffs.

[Zeb]

Yes, it is also difficult to avoid paying tariffs entirely. I was more responding to the claim that they aren't taxes because you can (in theory) choose not to pay them.

[sarcasmic]

Your first mistake was thinking ML says anything in good faith. He doesn't.

[BYODB]

Also, and maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't a top marginal income tax rate of 90% the largest tax hike in U.S. history?

The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income.

So please tell me more about how tariffs are equal to a 94% tax rate on income. They'll need to spell out precisely what the fuck they mean when they make this claim.

[sarcasmic]

In total dollar terms, Trump's tariffs are the single greatest tax increase in American history. Not the highest tax rate. The highest tax increase. Not that I'd expect a Trump defender to be intelligent and honest enough to understand the distinction between rate and increase. If you did then you'd have to admit that you swooned over Trump enacting the single biggest tax increase in American history, and are defending it right now.

I'll add that to the ever growing list of things you guys have in common with the leftists you hate.

Retarded leftists (redundant I know) cheer high income taxes because they believe their fleecing the rich and that makes them wealthier.

Retarded Trump defenders (redundant I know) cheer high tariffs because they believe they're fleecing foreigners and that makes them wealthier.

[sarcasmic]

they're not their, there

[DesigNate]

I disagree, as they are import taxes. I do agree they’re nowhere near “the largest tax hike in US history”.

[sarcasmic]

AI Overview
Learn more
Several economic analyses and news reports from 2025 indicated that tariffs imposed and threatened under President Trump amounted to a significant tax increase.
Key Points:
Largest Tax Increase since 1993 or earlier:
One estimate, based on projected federal tax revenues, suggested that in 2025, Trump's imposed and scheduled tariffs could increase federal tax revenues by $152.7 billion, or 0.49% of GDP, making them the largest tax hike since 1993.
Other estimates pointed to the tariff hikes being the largest in almost a century, potentially since 1951, when measuring the average effective tariff rate.
The most conservative estimate identified put the increase as the largest since 1982.

Alright. Not the largest in US history. But definitely the largest in a long time. Or, as Trump would say, yuge!

Facts is facts.

[DesigNate]

But they aren’t facts yet, they’re models and projections (Which, if the doomsayers are to be believed, are wildly optimistic if the economy does indeed tank.).

However, if the economy doesn’t do what the doomsayers have been foretelling (as I hope it doesn’t!), I can concede that your assessment would then be accurate.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Sober up, Biden is no longer the President and thus taxes are being cut. So is spending, fraud , waste, abuse, the climate change agenda hoax and others.

[sarcasmic]

Biden is no longer the President and thus taxes are being cut.

Tell that to importers.

So is spending, fraud , waste, abuse, the climate change agenda hoax and others.

Last I checked DOGE cut a couple day's worth of federal spending. That's it. And Trump's increased spending has more than offset it.

[Don't look at me! (Not signed with autopen)]

.. and let me buy my haggis-flavored chips online without an import tax" crowd

There are no people that eat that.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club"
Translation:
"We are united in being TDS-addled steaming piles of shit"

We already knew that, KMW.

[mad.casual]

Either you're the kind of free trade club that's going to maintain a deficit of regular anti-Trump liberals or you're not.

[NoVaNick]

Are these the same anti-Trumpers who bought guns after J6?

[TJJ2000]

If you think Democrats support "free trade" without government intervention then lets see how many Democrats support Trumps Tax-Cuts (i.e. Free'er trade) and De-Regulation (i.e. Free'er trade) and Spending Cuts (i.e. Free'er trade).

FFS their very socialist plan is to destroy "free trade" in the USA in all ways possible. This isn't USA "free trade" this is subsidized shipping & tax-exempting foreign production while domestic has to pick-up the bills. Anti-USA is more like it.

[Dillinger]

queue Thompson Twins lies lies lies yeah

[mad.casual]

Reason "libertarians" welcoming anti-Trump liberals to the "free trade club".

[Dillinger]

exactly.

[Vesicant]

(Singing) I'd like the world to give me free Coca Cola.

youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

[JasonT20]

The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful." Tariffs are just taxes in sheep's clothing—dressed up as patriotism, but fundamentally designed to pick your pocket.

The whole article up to this point, she was arguing as if blind ideology and partisan politics is irrational. She seemed to be saying that people should analyze policy based on rational analysis of the pros and cons, especially through the long-term effects, and not through emotional lenses and short-term thinking.

But then, she uses the "taxes are theft" libertarian mantra without any sense of irony. I guess it is the other people (liberals and populist conservatives) that need to be sure that they start thinking rationally about economics and politics. Not her.

[BYODB]

...but fundamentally designed to pick your pocket.

This is, of course, utter horse shit. Tariffs are not fundamentally designed to 'pick your pocket' even if that could be read as a second or even third order consequence.

The way Trump is using tariffs are absolutely not about 'picking pockets' and everything to do with negotiating lower international tariffs. We may agree or disagree on how effective that strategy might be, but it's absolutely clear that's his goal with it.

[JasonT20]

The way Trump is using tariffs are absolutely not about 'picking pockets' and everything to do with negotiating lower international tariffs. We may agree or disagree on how effective that strategy might be, but it's absolutely clear that's his goal with it.

You can't throw out words like "horse shit" and then try make this sane-washing of Trump's trade policies sound true.

Tariffs are supposed to bring manufacturing back! Tariffs are a negotiation tactic! Art of the Deal!!!!

None of that makes any sense. Tariffs can't be both a negotiating tactic and a protectionist barrier to give a boost to domestic manufacturing. No domestic industries are going to build or expand factories because of tariffs unless they can be fairly sure that the tariffs are going to remain in place for at least several years. Even if Trump would promise that he wouldn't lower them, that would still only last as long as he's in the WH. Industry invests in manufacturing capacity based on long-term conditions and expectations, not who is in the WH for the next few years.

They can't be a successful negotiating tactic if they are going to be suspended as soon as domestic industries that have to pay higher prices for the parts and raw materials that they import start complaining. Or when the stock market goes down, or whatever else. TACO trade policy is incoherent and weak. It hurts us more than it hurts other countries.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Yes they can be both a negotiating tactic and a protectionist barrier. That is exactly what tariffs are.

You miss the bigger picture.

For America to manufacture a product and sell it the price can't be exorbitantly higher or it will not sell. Sure many people Buy America automatically, but not enough and certainly not at triple the price of an imported product.

Add tariffs to try and steer people into buying American. The tariff will not bring in the tax revenues that would be if the product was manufactured in the US. But it will generate revenue.

Now decrease the corporate tax rate. With the reduced corporate tax rate making manufacturing cheaper in the US and raising the price of the imported product to equal or higher than a US made product would be, you are incentivizing companies to move to the US and manufacture there so they can sell their product at a lower price than the price which has the tariffs applied... This creates jobs and increases tax revenues for America.

It is an America First agenda.

[JasonT20]

You just described how tariffs could, in principle, result in more manufacturing. You don't seem to understand that all of your argument about them increasing incentives to manufacture in the U.S. is premised on the tariffs remaining in place for the long term.

For America to manufacture a product and sell it the price can't be exorbitantly higher or it will not sell. Sure many people Buy America automatically, but not enough and certainly not at triple the price of an imported product.

So, you agree that tariffs mean higher prices for American consumers for anything imported, made in the U.S. from imported parts or raw materials, or produced domestically that also has competition from imports? If you support tariffs then, I assume you have evidence that there is still a net gain for vast majority of Americans under this scenario?

But then,

How can they also be a negotiating tactic to get foreign countries to offer us lower tariffs and fewer trade restrictions on our exports to them? If we lower the tariffs as part of that kind of deal, then the incentives for domestic manufacturing are reduced or disappear. Which means that companies aren't going to actually invest in expanding domestic manufacturing until they know what the chances are of the tariffs staying in place.

With the reduced corporate tax rate making manufacturing cheaper in the US...

Corporate taxes are on profits. They do not raise manufacturing costs. They affect the decisions on whether to manufacture something since they affect the return on investment, but taxes on profits do not change the costs. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference to you, but it does matter. Managing and accounting in a business is complex, and I'm sure that there is a real difference between calculating costs and calculating profit and return on investment.

...and raising the price of the imported product to equal or higher than a US made product would be, you are incentivizing companies to move to the US and manufacture there so they can sell their product at a lower price than the price which has the tariffs applied... This creates jobs and increases tax revenues for America.

This is more incoherence. Supply side economic theory does not say that you can raise tariffs to encourage more domestic production and foreign investment as long as you lower corporate income taxes. Supply side theory proposes lowering all taxes in order to encourage investment and create jobs (While throwing in the Laffer Curve nonsense that lowering taxes can actually end up raising tax revenue.) What you're describing is not any economic theory I've ever heard of.

It is an America First agenda.

No, it is a fantasy combined with a corporate profits first agenda. Trump, his economic team, and his supporters in the right-wing media do a bunch of hand waving to claim that it will work and be good for working Americans, but they don't support that with anything but that hand waving and rhetoric.

[BYODB]

You don't seem to understand that all of your argument about them increasing incentives to manufacture in the U.S. is premised on the tariffs remaining in place for the long term.

You don't understand that lowering other countries tariffs results in increased sales of American manufactured goods oversea's so this is rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

If we lower the tariffs as part of that kind of deal, then the incentives for domestic manufacturing are reduced or disappear.

They won't disappear, that much is for sure, but reducing a benefit is still a benefit even if that does happen.

Which means that companies aren't going to actually invest in expanding domestic manufacturing until they know what the chances are of the tariffs staying in place.

How then do you explain the fact that it's already happened? I suppose those industries are just dumber than you are?

[JasonT20]

You don't understand that lowering other countries tariffs results in increased sales of American manufactured goods oversea's so this is rather like the pot calling the kettle black.

Like I started to explain below, this is different question. But actually, it shows why Trump's tariff tactics only make any kind of sense if they are only a negotiating tactic. For U.S. manufactured exports to increase due to a trade deal, then barriers have to be lowered. And the other country won't lower its tariffs on our goods going there if we're imposing protectionist tariffs on their goods coming here. This is why libertarians thinking and decades of Republican policy has been based around reducing trade barriers like tariffs. They are happy to trade less domestic manufacturing that requires low skill labor for the lower prices for consumers that come from importing those goods instead. While the other part of that deal is to lower trade barriers in those other countries for the goods (or services) we make here that require highly skilled labor. They see that as a win-win for both countries.

High tariffs on goods that can be made with abundant, cheaper labor overseas will make bilateral trade agreements that lower barriers for our exports unlikely.

And yes, I am presuming, in all of this, that we are talking about products where developing countries have an inherent advantage over us due to much cheaper labor costs. If we talk instead about products where the basic manufacturing costs are comparable in both countries, then where is the need for tariffs to make U.S. businesses competitive?

[DesigNate]

All taxes get passed on to the consumer. Not in a 1:1 ratio, obviously, but you’re delusional if you think that a companies current tax bill isn’t figured into the costs for the following year.

[BYODB]

None of that makes any sense. Tariffs can't be both a negotiating tactic and a protectionist barrier to give a boost to domestic manufacturing.

Actually, they absolutely can be. Half the things you claim are impossible here have actually already happened.

Also perhaps notable, all the things you've claimed would happen because of the tariffs have not occurred. I'll listen to people who have actually been proven correct, but so far you're batting zero.

[JasonT20]

I always bow and admit that I've been beaten in an argument when people tell me how I've been proven wrong without actually providing any evidence, giving specifics, or even explaining in general terms what I was wrong about.

[BYODB]

Trade has not collapsed, tariffs have been reduced on countries that negotiated, and investment in U.S. manufacturing is up. That is a succinct rebuttal I think.

And it's about all that's required since your 'evidence' amounts to your opinion.

[JasonT20]

None of that addresses what I've just argued here.

Did i say that TACO trade policy would "collapse" trade? No. Did I say that Trump only lowered tariffs without other countries giving up something? No. He did a fair amount of that, but in some cases, sure. The other country did offer something. So, was it a good deal for us? Was it something they wouldn't have offered with normal trade negotiations? How often has it worked out like that compared to the number of times it hasn't?

...investment in U.S. manufacturing is up.

Is it? I think that does require more than your say so.

Since you're arguing against things I'm not saying, let me be succinct:

I'm saying:

1) It is a contradiction to impose tariffs on a particular country and product with the goal of using it as a negotiating tactic while also having the goal of using it to boost domestic production of the same product. That is about the logic of the tactic, and not about any current outcomes. But hey, if there is something happening that is clear evidence that the reasoning that follows is wrong, I'd be interested in seeing it. So far, you made a claim that might not be true, based on the first things that popped up when I searched for it.

2) My reasoning for that is about the basic nature of how tariffs work + what the Trump side is saying the tariffs will do.
a) As a negotiating tactic, it is essential that Trump be willing to lower or eliminate the tariffs, if that gets him whatever he was trying to get when he raised them.
b) To boost manufacturing, they have to remain in place in order for businesses to use the tariffs as part of their decision to invest millions of dollars over the course of the next few years in order to increase production for long enough to get a good return on that investment..

[BYODB]

PMI is higher than it was a year ago, should I take this as read that things are improving using your own source?

It is a contradiction to impose tariffs on a particular country and product with the goal of using it as a negotiating tactic while also having the goal of using it to boost domestic production of the same product.

It isn't though, since lowering their tariff boosts domestic production by some amount. You're assuming that this theoretical other nation has an absolute advantage on whatever imaginary product exists in your head, so you'd need to be a lot more specific about what exactly you're talking about.

Since everything in your second point flows from your mistaken understanding in your first point, no rebuttal is necessary there.

[JasonT20]

PMI is higher than it was a year ago, should I take this as read that things are improving using your own source?

Maybe if you're looking for something to confirm your priors, you should do that. Can you think of anything that might have changed between Jan. 2025 (PMI = 50.9) and March 2025 (PMI = 49.0) that could matter to what we're arguing about? And that might also be relevant to why PMI went down further in April and then again in May? This is just one article in one place. Maybe we should both be looking for something more authoritative and comprehensive to see what the effects have been of Trump's policies. You're not making me think that you'd do that and do it honestly and objectively, though, given your eagerness to find what you want in this one article.

It isn't though, since lowering their tariff boosts domestic production by some amount.

Production of a different product that will be exported, sure. I was clear that I was talking about a specific product being imported and the tariffs imposed on it. And I did that because that is the argument that Trump has been making from the beginning. Impose tariffs on imported goods to boost domestic manufacturing of those products that are currently competing with those imports in the U.S. market. You're turning it into a different discussion by making it about bilateral trade. My reply to that will be above.

You're assuming that this theoretical other nation has an absolute advantage on whatever imaginary product exists in your head, so you'd need to be a lot more specific about what exactly you're talking about.

Telling me that I need to be more specific about "what exactly" I'm talking about... None of you have been arguing specifics, so looking at the broader principles is what I've been doing too.

Since everything in your second point flows from your mistaken understanding in your first point, no rebuttal is necessary there.

When you actually show that I'm mistaken, then you'll be in the clear.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murdering citizens caught in public spaces:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Fuck off and die, steaming shit-pile..

[JFree]

If his goal is negotiating something then he has failed because he has negotiated nothing. The only thing he has done is create chaos among American businesses as to whether anything can last longer than one week.

[BYODB]

I see, so China is at the negotiating table right now because Trump did nothing.

Notice that JFree doesn't even bother to claim Trump will get a worse deal from the negotiations, he instead claims they aren't happening at all. Amusingly, this is right in line with the propaganda that China is feeding their own people.

[JFree]

China is not at a negotiating table right now. Not with the US at least. They're certainly looking to (and are) negotiate with Europe and Japan and such. Now that Trump has declared trade war on everyone everywhere simultaneously

[TJJ2000]

Needless to point out ... American *production* businesses aren't affected by Tariffs.

So unless you base all your assertion on a Toddler-Depend USA your bucket runs dry every-time.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murdering citizens caught in public spaces:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Fuck off and die, shit stain.

[IceTrey]

Sure in Libertopia free trade is great. We don't live in Libertopia.

[Neutral not Neutered]

First off American manufactured products using American raw materials will not change in price.

If you previously Bought American then you should see no price increase.

If you buy Made in America products that are manufactured with imported raw materials or components then the price will increase but only a small amount pending what the product is.

Buying these items keeps American jobs in tact and provides the highest level of tax revenue to the US government.

These are the most beneficial products to purchase for America. This can't be argued.

As this article notes and so many people are being gaslit into believing is that tariffs are a tax on American people. This is incorrect.

Tariffs are a way to increase US gov revenue for products sold in the US that were not made there and did not generate any of the revenue for America as noted above.

If these products simply enter the US and are sold then they bring the least impact to the US economy as the importer will pay taxes on the profits they make from importing and the retailer will pay taxes on the product sales. There's a few jobs involved but minimal compared to products complete manufactured in America.

I guess people have to ask the question and find the balance between driving your economy, having jobs and the security of the products made in your country or if paying less for a product is more important.

Of course supply chain issues as seen with Covid are a real problem. Especially for certain products that we can't do without. And what if you go to war with the country you are importing important products from and there is no other source?

Does the fact that unsafe work practices and worse, slavery, not turn people's opinions toward willing to pay more for a product made in the USA knowing they are benefitting their country and not others?

Yes it's a balance. I am sure no one will complain about Hoola Hoops being imported from china now cost $4.25 versus $3.00 last year. And no one in America is willing to work under the table in a sweat shop for $3.00/hr so Hoola Hoops could be made in America for $3.00 either.

Since products entering the country provide the least tax revenue for a country, adding a tariff can help balance the loss of not manufacturing that product in your own country.

The idea that an American First agenda is supposed to benefit the world and not America is idiotic.

These reporters and people whining because America is now going to increase it's revenues by applying tariffs to products and try to force some of these products to be manufactured in the US versus somewhere else that the supply can be shut off in the blink of an eye from are very shallow thinkers.

[JasonT20]

As this article notes and so many people are being gaslit into believing is that tariffs are a tax on American people. This is incorrect.

I've not seen anyone at Reason saying that. What is simple fact, because of what a tariff does, is that the person or business that imports something that they intend to use in manufacturing or a finished product that they intend to sell pays the tariff. That business can either eat the cost of the tariff or pass at least some of that cost on to American consumers. "Eating" the tariff would mean higher costs that aren't balanced by higher revenue, and thus that lowers their profits. Or, it could even make importing that product unprofitable entirely, and they'd have to stop importing it.

Under any scenario, however, U.S. consumers end up paying higher prices:

1) Imports or products made here with imported materials that were cheaper or competitive with domestic products become less competitive. Either they won't be cheaper anymore, or the domestic producers will have the room in the market to raise their prices to increase their profits due to the reduced foreign competition.

2) The imported product cannot be brought into the U.S. in a way that would be profitable at all, so no one imports it. Prices will go up because of the reduced competition and supply.

3) The imported products or raw materials are not produced domestically at all. They would not be profitable to do so, or the raw material simply does not exist in the U.S. Prices for consumers go up.

So, is it gaslighting to say these things?

[BYODB]

I've not seen anyone at Reason saying that.

So, you can't read or just refuse to?

Under any scenario, however, U.S. consumers end up paying higher prices:

Which is, of course, EXACTLY what Reason is talking about when they call it a 'tax on American consumers'.

[JasonT20]

Okay, sure, they do say that it is a "tax on American consumers" while being clear that they don't mean that literally. Just like they often talk about American consumers "paying" the "cost" of regulations. But Neutral not Neutered said that this is incorrect and that it is gaslighting readers. But it is not incorrect, and neither he, nor you, nor anyone else has explained how you think tariffs work so that it would be incorrect.

[BYODB]

That's because calling it a 'tax on American consumers' is, as you yourself note, not true.

Neutral is calling it gaslighting because people don't like taxes, and the reason it's being compared to taxes is pretty nakedly to make people associate tariffs that they don't understand to something they do understand and don't like.

I'm not sure if it's technically gaslighting either, although we are being told to not believe our lying eyes. Biden raised prices by a hell of a lot and we were told that was business as usual, so complaining about tariffs increasing prices seems selective at best.

[JasonT20]

Biden raised prices by a hell of a lot...

If it isn't true that tariffs will impose additional costs to consumers by imposing taxes on imports in a way that could be metaphorically described as a "tax on American consumers," then it certainly isn't true that Biden "raised prices" by any amount. Either allow the use of figurative language or don't use it yourself.

Btw, you still haven't refuted the basic claim that raising tariffs will be very likely to raise prices for consumers.

[BYODB]

I was just pointing out that prices go and up and prices go down, and they went up a lot under the last guy already. If they hadn't, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act wouldn't have been necessary, not that it did anything other than the reverse of it's stated name.

So freaking out now about tariffs potentially causing prices to go up appears to have more to do with their personal view of Trump and the Republican party rather than any specific distaste for price increases in general or any particular nuanced view of tariff policy.

The basic claim that tariffs would be likely to raise prices is, of course, generally true which is why I haven't refuted it or even attempted to do so. However, this is a basic view of economics that ignores anything past Econ101 when someone would be introduced to tariffs as a raw concept with absolutely no nuance whatsoever.

For example, if American is disadvantaged by domestic policy in manufacturing it's quite possible we can produce those products for less than we're buying it from China but we simply don't want to do that for one reason or another.

In fact, this is probably the case for a whole slew of manufactured goods where our own domestic policy is the real reason why we are non-competitive with places like China that couldn't really give two fucks about things like CO2. Hell, China releases CFC's that are straight illegal in the United States and since the atmosphere is global does it really matter if we use them when other huge economies still do? What is the purpose of such ineffectual regulation that drives up domestic manufacturing costs, would you say?

[JasonT20]

So freaking out now about tariffs potentially causing prices to go up appears to have more to do with their personal view of Trump and the Republican party rather than any specific distaste for price increases in general or any particular nuanced view of tariff policy.

That the opposite of what's happening in this thread. I am talking about how Trump's actual policies are likely to affect prices and the economy more broadly. You're just looking at a correlation between inflation and Biden being in office. You're projecting.

The basic claim that tariffs would be likely to raise prices is, of course, generally true which is why I haven't refuted it or even attempted to do so.

You fooled me there because you sure avoided acknowledging it. You chose instead to argue so hard against everything else that I was saying that I thought you were arguing against that, too.

For example, if American is disadvantaged by domestic policy in manufacturing it's quite possible we can produce those products for less than we're buying it from China but we simply don't want to do that for one reason or another.

It would be awesome if Trump and his administration would show signs that they were working to correct those kinds of problems. Instead, their messaging is all Trump posting on social media about the latest huge tariff he is imposing on some other country for, reasons.

In fact, this is probably the case for a whole slew of manufactured goods where our own domestic policy is the real reason why we are non-competitive with places like China that couldn't really give two fucks about things like CO2. Hell, China releases CFC's that are straight illegal in the United States and since the atmosphere is global does it really matter if we use them when other huge economies still do?

Uh, yeah it matters, since adding our own pollution to whatever other countries are putting in the atmosphere is guaranteed to make the problem even worse. You are talking like the correct solution to other countries emitting pollution that affects the whole world negatively is to join them in polluting.

What is the purpose of such ineffectual regulation that drives up domestic manufacturing costs, would you say?

The purpose is to keep our own cities from having such bad air that it harms the health of millions of Americans. The larger problems of ozone depletion and GHGs will take international agreements. If China is breaking the Montreal Protocol and still using CFCs in violation of that treaty from 1987, then I can't wait for the Trump administration to make abiding by it a priority in trade negotiations with China. And I can't wait for the Trump administration to work with other countries and lead even China and India into making real progress in curtailing carbon emissions. But I'm not holding my breath. Even though breathing might also be bad for my health in what seems like your preferred world where our environmental regulations were the same as in China and India.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murdering citizens caught in public spaces:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Fuck off and die, ass wipe..

[DesigNate]

Congressional Democrats and their big government RINO fuckbuddies over spent the last two years of Trump and first two years of Biden by something like $9.6 Trillion. That’s what caused the inflation!

[NoVaNick]

Well, you have two types of democrats, or liberals I mean here: the old school pro-union who like tarrifs, and the new college educated whose retirement funds are getting shaky right now and many of whom also happen to work in finance. Guess which ones hate Trump the most?

[Azathoth!!]

Reciprocal.

If you charge them what they're charging you it cancels out.

This results in a system of tariffs and costs that renders tariffs and costs moot.

De facto free trade because the leftists who have infected economic theory like everything else they've touched are too stupid or brainwashed to allow de jure free trade.

Just look at the morons at Reason and Cato.

[JasonT20]

If you charge them what they're charging you it cancels out.

Uh, no. It just means that consumers in both countries are paying more for products than they would without the tariffs. Maybe you should charge the same tariffs for imports from country A as they charge for your exports to that country, but that would be for other reasons. It doesn't "cancel out."

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^This steaming pile of lefty shit supports murdering citizens caught in public spaces:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Fuck off and die, asshole.

[Zeb]

That's ridiculous collectivist thinking. It doesn't cancel out. It just means that two governments get more money and the people involved in commerce all get screwed equally.

[BYODB]

I think that might be the joke, but it's unclear.

[TJJ2000]

Indeed. All of it is about Government Revenue.
Government Revenue Democrats endless spending requires.

Funny how none of them complained about rising-prices in the future when they were pitching ?free? ponies. Why it's almost like they believed a fairy-princess somehow would cause ponies to just fall out of the sky for them.

But now that their socialist/communist Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie bill is starting to hit the fan they now think they can just shovel that bill off onto 'just' domestic and avoid having to pay for it all by building across the pond.

[Azathoth!!]

Wow.

If I charge you what you're charging me, there is no gain. We both pay the advantage we thought we got with our raised prices in order to get the thing we wanted/needed in the first place.

Governments don't gain when they've got to pay that gain to maintain.

Reciprocal.

The idea is that if you can't get managed economy idiots to level the playing field with simple free trade, you use tariffs and costs to artificially level the playing field to a de facto 'free trade' state and let the market do the rest.

Because, at that point the only way to gain advantage is to move to an actual state of free trade.

And yes, consumers will bear the brunt of this. Why not? Consumers created this situation. Or are you thinking that something that DOESN'T consume put all these structures in place?

It's going to hurt to fix this. Because the idea that billions of individual decisions can be managed is so deeply entrenched.

[XM]

Like minded tea party activists oppose illegal immigration

"You are not true fiscal conservatives. You oppose cutting medicare. Your fealty to reducing government is diluted"

Jew hating Marxist democrats "support" free trade just to oppose Trump

"Welcome friends! Free trade, to the exclusion of all else!"

You think a society with free trade will flourish in peace and prosperity while hate rampages on campus, bigots set people on fire, and thousands of illegal criminals roam the streets. How out of touch can you be?

I'm going to be real here. When has free trade actually led to peace in craphole countries? Japan didn't modernize until Commodore Perry fired cannons at them, and their emperor nixed ancient customs incompatible with the modern world. Korea isn't what it is today without American involvement, and their economy didn't grow until a pro American dictator overhauled an agrarian economy.

Phillipines? Hong Kong? Same idea. Every backwards country that saw women as cattle didn't join the new world until the west forced them to - mostly under colonial rule, which was brutal, but that's truth. Trade only helped them grow after they civilized. Indians have been trading all their lives, and they were stone age people when the Europeans arrived on their turf.

You may like that cheap Chinese stuff make live affordable for Americans, but it doesn't change the fact that China is a totalitarian regime who rely on slave labor, and their people work in brutal conditions to keep prices low. We tolerate it in the name of global relation and economic stability. But we don't have to celebrate it. It doesn't preclude us from asking our trade partners to lower tariffs. The way this publication savages our president and nation, as if it's beholden to outside interest in the name of free trade - SMH.

[JFree]

Trump's plan is incoherent. His execution is worse. The emphasis on tariffs is just nonsense. The problem is the perpetual trade deficit but that is being ignored

[Alphonse Gaston]

Free trade meant PPE was unobtainable, bc China was hoarding supplies, and not even 3M could get their stuff out.
Free trade means China takes Taiwan whenever they want, bc we rely on them forall our daily needs.
During WW II, Chrysler built a factory from scratch that received steel and aluminum, and turned them into B-29s
We let all that skill, knowledge, and ability go, to save a few dollars on a toaster.

[Alphonse Gaston]

Who supports free trade?
People who do not compete with foreign workers.
People who do not compete with immigrants.
People who see no problem paying burger flippers a family-sustaining wage.
Journalists, lawyers, and certain academics.

[TJJ2000]

I find it amazing how the "Free Trade" flag-ship of Libertarian-ism all the sudden got entirely and completely disconnected from the US markets and now only includes imports.

[AT]

(Or in the immortal words of Mean Girls: "Get in, loser. We're going shopping.")

I can now confirm with absolute certainty literally everything that has gone wrong with Reason dot com.

You've heard me say it before. They're not serious people saying serious things about serious issues. It's clown world.

And now we see the Editor In Chief openly showing her mindset. Where it comes from, how it's predicated, how she conceptualizes things. The paradigm at its core.

From now on, any time you read a Reason article, add the words, "So fetch" at the very end.