Why We Can't Have Nice Things: The Ghosts of Protectionism Past
The U.S. tariff code is "quite regressive and somewhat misogynist" because the most powerful lobbyist in Washington is muscle memory.

It's now been nearly 100 years since Congress overhauled the United States' general tariff system—a system that is by now "quite antiquated and designed for a different time and a different economy," says Ed Gresser.
And that's not all, says Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative who now serves as vice president for the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. The tariff code is also "quite regressive and somewhat misogynist." Inexpensive goods like cheap sneakers are generally taxed at a higher rate than pricier items like leather boots, and women's underwear is charged a higher tariff rate than boxers and briefs.
In the second episode of Why We Can't Have Nice Things, a new podcast series from Reason, we're diving into the weird and wonky tariff system that imposes hidden taxes on Americans every day. Protectionism usually benefits some special interest at the expense of everyone else, but some of the industries supposedly being protected by these tariffs don't even exist in the U.S. anymore.
"The most effective lobbyist in Washington is muscle memory," says Steve Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association.
The supply chains for basic necessities like T-shirts, shoes, and underwear stretch all the way around the world today. But America's tariff code still acts like those are niche domestic industries. On this week's episode of Why We Can't Have Nice Things, we're explaining what that means for consumers and why we've recently moved in the wrong direction—by applying even more tariffs on top of some of the most highly taxed imports.
Further reading for this week's episode:
"U.S. Underwear Tariffs Are Unfair to Women," by Ed Gresser
"U.S. Tariffs on Cheap Stainless Steel Spoons Are 5 Times Higher Than on Sterling Silver Spoons," by Ed Gresser
"The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade," by Pietra Rivoli
"If Biden's Trade Policy Was Really Driven by 'Equity,' Trump's Tariffs Would Already Be Gone," by Eric Boehm
Written by Eric Boehm; produced and edited by Hunt Beaty; mixing by Ian Keyser; fact checking by Katherine Sypher
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
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Where are all the principled Trump supporters who said anyone who questioned his tariffs had TDS?
Oh, duh. They were defending the man, not his policies.
How much have you had to drink this morning? Jeez.
Based upon my personal experience I believe you are a liar and a stain when you claim to have been in the Corps, because every Marine I've met was an honorable person with principles and a strong sense of right and wrong.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You're an alcoholic lefty shit, nobody cares what you think. Drink up.
To a simpleton lefty shit like you, my principles and sense of right and wrong is unimpeachable. If you were capable of shame, maybe everybody here wouldn't have to call you out for being a stupid lefty shit constantly. You wouldn't know the first thing about honor or integrity. JJ did tie buckle, bitch.
What else do you talk about at family gatherings?
You threatened to kick my ass, then ran like a cowardly little pussy, and have been ducking me for six months. I would ask if you had any shame, but you and I both know that you have none. That would involve you having a shred of self respect.
If you did, you would have ended your own life many years ago.
One bourbon, one scotch, one beer.
Careful Sarcasmic, Mike might swing in to chide you. He hates it when someone points out another person is ignoring something.
Why are you so obsessed with Trump?
Tariffs have nothing to do with Trump: both parties favor them, both parties impose them, and they were the original funding mechanism for the US government.
Neither do tariffs have anything to do with free markets, comparative advantage, or libertarianism, despite the nonsense that Reason authors keep spewing.
My cousin was enraged when he discovered his kid's cheap plastic toy was made in China. "Why can't we make stuff here!" he shouted.
So what he's asking is for awful menial rote jobs. He want's Charlie Bucket's dad to spend 12 hours a day screwing on toothpaste caps. Gawd. It's better for other people to do these jobs so that we can have more interesting and lucrative careers.
Ditto for ladies underwear. Do we really want to relegate an entire class of citizen (no immigrants allowed) to undies sweatshops? I've seen these sweatshops, by the way. Not undies but shirts. Same menial rote labor.
Let the market decide, not angry populists demanding the union label. Consumers get cheaper (and often better) products, which spurs on the economy. Producers can bitch all they want, but producers will gravitate to more suitable products. Which again spurs on the economy.
This Democrat New Deal FDR style of thinking needs to end. It's so fucking weird that the Trumpistas want to emulate 1930s Democrats.
It's as if Trumpistas have no understanding of comparative advantage, or of economics in general.
Too bad sarcasmic has no understanding of how to not be a drunken idiot.
Or how not be a craven lying pussy.
Neither do most "libertarians" it seems. Viz: "libertarians" who think that eliminating US import tariffs results in "free trade" or reflects "comparative advantage".
It’s ok if the sweatshops are in China, because they aren’t really people.
Just remember:
It was the weird ethnic eating habits of those dirty foreign peasants that caused the latest global plague - and it's racist to suggest otherwise.
It’s better for other people to do these jobs so that we can have more interesting and lucrative careers.
Hooray for offshoring slavery. So long as brandy doesn't see it, all is well.
Yeah, it's better for Charlie Bucket’s dad to go into debt for a studies degree and serve coffe.
Dropping tariffs isn't "letting markets decide".
It's so fucking weird that people like you suffer from the delusion that you favor free markets or libertarianism, when you obviously have no understanding of either.
Given the retardedly narrow, even one dimensional, maybe even intentional, way this article (and its source) look at trade, I'm going to skip the almost certainly more retarded podcast.
The article gives comparisons of tariff rates to other nations and makes broad allegations about policy while stating precisely *zero* trade metrics. It's like complaining about sex/gender disparities in the Dutch Tulip Trade.
You can start when they call the "Progressive Policy Institute" simply "left of center."
Media weasel wording write there. The endless stream of invective at anyone not onboard with progressive orthodoxy as fascist and far right, or right wing extremists. And progressives are merely left of center, technically true, but as though they every so slightly prefer left policy. Like Chavez was a "left of center" politician in Venezuela.
Just call them what they are..cronyists with a strong dose of cultural marxism in their blood.
Well, Boehm is a weasel who is in the media. And he voted for Biden.
End all tariffs now ... permanently! If they want to charge a minor "inspection" fee to cover the cost of routine import checks, fine. Otherwise no tariffs ever again.
If they want to charge a minor “inspection” fee to cover the cost of routine import checks, fine.
1% of women's underwear imports complete inspection between 8:00 and 8:05 a.m. at a cost of $30K per shipment. 99% of women's underwear completes inspection within the rest of the 8 hour day at the prevailing/living wage. Men's underwear is never inspected and just sort of diffuses into the market. Misogynistic tariff disparity remains.
No. If the government must be funded, consumption taxes (of which tariffs are the best ones) are preferred to income or capital.
Why?
1. Tariffs are not consumption taxes, they're import (and inevitably, export) penalties.
2. Consumption taxes are inherently regressive.
3. Income taxes and capital gains taxes are not inherently regressive. The argument for taxing income alone and ignoring capital gains is superficially attractive, but it will result in schemes that replace income with capital gains (as seen with private equity payments to executives and consultants, for example).
4. Why not just require each state to contribute a fixed per capita amount each year to fund the Feds and let each state decide how to raise the funds?
If a sales tax is a consumption tax then a tariff is a consumption tax. A tariff is applied at the border not the store, and by the federal government not the state, but it’s still a tax on a consumption good paid by consumers.
Even if the tariff is on raw materials like steel, it is still paid by the consumer when they buy whatever was made out of the taxed metal.
That said, I do agree with Nobartium that consumption taxes are the way to fund government, assuming there must be government and taxes.
You get less of what you tax. So why tax the production and creation of wealth? Isn't wealth a good thing?
So... by this analysis... is an income tax also a consumption tax? I mean, as a tax on labor, with labor being the majority of the cost of most manufactured goods.....
No, income tax is a tax on productive activity.
Yes, tariffs are consumption taxes.
So? You seem to take it as given that there is anything desirable about progressive taxation.
In practice, they are, since wealthy people usually don't pay much in either.
More importantly, income and capital gains taxes tax productive activities.
Because progressives hate that kind of system.
Aye.
Well thongs should be tariff free. If the granny panties have to double in price so be it.
Reset all tariffs to zero and re-analyse. If for political reasons you want to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, for example, at least do so from the current context not historically.
"Free Trade" as Reason has nothing to do with actual free trade. Free trade agreements can be written on one page. Neither side subsidizes their sellers, neither side has tariffs and most importantly, neither side pegs their currency to the other. Instead, a commodity should be used as the medium between currencies..a commodity based on gold. Now try and do this....and be destroyed by the DC lobbyists..instead we have the current situation to allow the US to ship our inflation to China who is more than happy to have eaten it to build up their industrial base. If a country pegs to your currency, you don't trade with them...period end of story.
I clicked through to the paper about these tariffs... and nope.
Still don't get it.
It seemed to be intentionally written to obscure what the real underlying tariffs are. Things are presented so obliquely and with such opaque language, it leads me to conclude that the entire point is to intimate that there are differential tariffs on women's undergarments when there actually are not.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the tariffs are on materials, rather than on types of garments. So Cotton has a high tariff, and silk a low tariff, etc. The end result is that net-net, women's undergaments carry a slightly higher tariff.
The numbers were small and kind of argued the opposite conclusion. Both carried diminimus dollar amounts - 24 cents for mens underwear on average, and 37 cents for women's.
The article claims that this somehow balloons to over a dollar per item at the cash register.... though exactly how is unclear.
But even a buck is not relevant for women's underwear. Apparently this dude has never been shopping for women's underwear. My wife spends more on 1 bra than I have spent on all underwear combined in my entire life. (Ok, that may be a slight exaggeration, but only slight) Dudes buy a pack of boxers for like $3 - $5 each. (twice what it was just a president ago) And we don't buy them very often. Because... dudes.
Meanwhile, a nice bra starts at nearly $50 and goes up from there. And they need a lot more of those than we need boxers. And then there is the panties. Now, you can buy a cheap bag of panties at walmart for prices close to what guys pay... .but let's get real. We are going to Victoria's Secret where nearly twenty bucks for a pair of panties seems reasonable.
And I suspect that this is what they are trying to plug into. Instead of saying "the materials that women's undergarments are made of carry 13 cents more in tariffs than the materials that men's undergarments are made of", they imply that your boyfriend is paying a tiny fraction for his fruit of the looms than you are paying for your Victoria's Secret matched set because of misogyny built into the tariff system.
Of course, that is conjecture, because this stupid source was written to be opaque and the only discernible statement is "women's undergarments carry larger tariffs".
Anyway, if you are using that subheading and basing it on that ludicrous source, I'm not bothering to listen to the podcast. So if they eschew the norms of skipping past verifying their underlying assumptions and going straight to remedies for problems that might not actually exist - please, someone clue me in.
Federal revenues:
- income tax: $4900 billion
- capital gains: $200 billion
- tariffs: $100 billion
So, tariffs are tiny compared to other sources of revenue.
And that's a shame because tariffs tax consumption (good), while income and capital gains taxes tax productive, economically beneficial activities (bad). The US would be a lot better off if we increased revenue from tariffs and decreased revenue from income taxes.
Furthermore, tariffs are imposed on countries that we wouldn't have free trade with even in the absence of US tariffs, so there is no libertarian or free market argument to be made against tariffs.
It is an absurdity to list this article under "free trade". Free trade exists between private actors in free markets. The US could unilaterally drop all tariffs and there still wouldn't be "free trade" with anybody.
The idea that "no tariffs" means "free trade" is such a blatant and obvious falsehood that you have to wonder whether Reason writers are deliberately lying about it or just profoundly ignorant.