Free Trade Expert Takes Down the Best Arguments for Tariffs
Daniel Hannan argues that protectionism never works, but that's a lesson that politicians and voters seemingly have to relearn repeatedly.
HD DownloadCan you avoid the cost of tariffs by buying only American-made products? Will tariffs promote domestic manufacturing while filling federal tax coffers? Is free trade killing jobs?
No, no, and certainly not, explains Daniel Hannan, a conservative member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom and president of the Institute for Free Trade.
"Tariffs will push up the cost not only of the imported stuff obviously with the tariff but also that the domestic industries will raise their prices as well because they no longer have the competition," Hannan tells Reason. "And what does that mean? It means that every American has less disposable income. They've all got to spend more money to live at the same level that they were living at before without any gain."
In an exclusive sit-down with Reason, Hannan debunks some of the most common arguments for tariffs and explains why free trade remains underappreciated—despite a remarkable track record of lifting billions out of poverty and making it possible for human beings to work and live in better conditions than ever.
And that's true even if other countries are imposing tariffs on American goods.
"Just because somebody else is shooting himself in the foot, the worst possible response is to take aim and blow off a couple of your own toes in order to show them," he says.
President Donald Trump has imposed 10 percent tariffs on nearly all imports into the United States (and far higher tariffs on goods from China). Trump says he wants to stop other countries from taking advantage of America, but his trade war is rattling stock markets and threatens to reduce Americans' standard of living.
Hannan says protectionism never works, but that's a lesson that politicians and voters seemingly have to learn and relearn periodically.
"Free trade is always unpopular, but it always works. What, in the end, convinces people is not theory, but practice," says Hannan. "After the [Smoot-Hawley] tariffs, people understood that protectionism made everybody poorer, especially the people it was most designed to protect, the people on lower incomes. I have a horrible feeling that we're about to go through that learning process again."
Music credits: "Goals" by Rex Banner via Artlist; "Daydream" by Audiopanther via Artlist; "Dark Sparks" by Raz Burg via Artlist; "Bubbles Drop" by Cosmonkey via Artlist; "A Girl Can Dream" by Emily Lewis via Artlist; "Big Fat Tummy" by Ge Gilter Fish via Artlist; "Sensation Station" by Novembers via Artlist; "Hey Honey" by The Talbot Brothers via Artlist; "Come Around" by Danya via Artlist; "Valley of Lights" by Romeo via Artlist
- Video Editor: Danielle Thompson
- Producer: Daniel Hannan
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
Oh boy, another tariffs article!
If only there were a profession devoted to analyzing the resulting value of flogging the corpse of Patrick Henry by increasing the available labor pool by 50% or more.
It's beginning to feel an awful lot like the parody exchange where a door man at the bar won't let the unvaccinated person in without a mask even though everyone inside is vaccinated. Except rather than masks or 100% safe and effective vaccines with no downsides, it's cheap dishwashers that are 100% efficient or which ever brand of EV we are supposed to be protecting and/or not setting on fire this week.
disagreement with Trump = leftist
economics disagrees with Trump
economics = leftist
Tired old strawman = Sarcasmic
Terrible trolling attempt = Sarcasmic
Shitty attempt at false equivalency = Sarcasmic
Nice job, buddy. You went three for three.
You can tell you're dealing with a retard when he thinks all economists agree with his view and doesn't know economists never all agree on something. And since he doesn't know this he thinks the only economic argument he needs is an appeal to authority to whichever economist agrees with him.
Dealing with sarc is dealing with a retard.
And this is sarcs actual understanding of economics:
I remember when I worked at a job that paid overtime, and if I worked too much my paycheck would be smaller because it put me into a higher bracket. So I limited the hours I worked.
Saw this stupid comment when the browser logged me out.
Say I was getting paid biweekly. The percentage withheld was then based upon the bracket that corresponded to the gross times twenty six. So once I hit like 55 hours or some such, that percentage would get bumped up resulting in more being withheld than if I had worked 53 or 54 hours.
That's not even economics. That's grade school math.
Fuck you're dumb.
As far as economic views go, economists have been in general agreement since 1776 that tariffs interfere with comparative advantage and cause opportunity cost, resulting in everyone being poorer. Those two principles, comparative advantage and opportunity cost, are the foundation of the discipline.
You flat our reject those principles while claiming to know more about economics than anyone who does.
That's so stupid it makes my head hurt.
So back on mute you go. I probably lost a couple IQ points responding to your abject stupidity. Fuck you're a waste of carbon.
Yes I noticed that I said 55 instead of 110. That's because overtime is based upon the weekly total hours, not biweekly.
To take a note from Jesse's playbook and speak for all the readers of reason.com; It's okay, we all know Jesse is a dishonest piece of shit and cannot, for whatever reason, argue in good faith.
member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom
Automatic rejection.
I don't care about the economic opinions of those outside my country.
Not a fan of the Austrian school? Adam Smith was a nobody? Bastiat just a froggie?
Do you apply that same selectivity to Newton, Einstein, Bohr?
Yes. I would if Newton, Einstein, or Bohr rattled on about US economics. I stick to baseball & pussy with those dudes.
So, economics works differently in the US than other places?
How many schools of economics are there currently?
Declaring your economist the expert is a nonsense declaration. That's what reason did. They found the economist they agree with and dubbed him the authority. It is meaningless.
It was a joke, killjoy. Jesus.
Nobody who isn't a citizen should be listened to in regards to policy.
Whilst Einstein did become one, his opinion was overruled (atomic weapons).
Cmon man. The UK is the epitome of free trade! Just ask them!
Well, at one time they were.
Find me the time they went without tariffs, as this is the primary claim occurring. Then show me the data that proves no tariffs allows for optimized trade.
I can point you to a paper derived from British economics that began with many on the unilateral trade side that actually discusses tariff optimization if you want.
It is by another free trade economist from Britain, Nicholas Kaldor.
I'm declaring him an expert in the same vein.
Game Theory again, right? Is that the motivation for Trump's tariffs?
What exactly is a "free trade expert"
Appeal to authority.
That's all. Eric is a comms major, not an economist.
I claim to be a free trade expert and you freely cede all your reasoning faculties and credibility to me. Free trade.
Sounds like a PC term for a thief. All trade is free if you just take it!
Experts say ... The Hunter laptop was fake. Covid will wipe out the entire Earth and certainly didn't come from a laboratory. The San Francisquito Dam was accident-proof. The Shah was doing fine in Iran. Y2K will kill all commerce. All of physics had been discovered by 1874. There is a world market for maybe five computers. The Titanic is unsinkable. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Travel to the moon is impossible. The cinema is little more than a fad. Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out. The Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the US market. I believe it is peace for our time. The Earth is the center of the universe.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Can't be bothered to read, but do they address that it is a tool to renegotiate trade deals?
The British free trade model is what quickly led to:
British deindustrialization - to the benefit of Germany and the US - replaced by a financialized economy
A drive for global colonization - so the entire world becomes only a handful of independent economies and internal trade within them becomes a highly stratified - dependent colony v rich heartland - society
Within that dependent colony part of each empire - famine and oppression is widespread - millions in Ireland, tens or maybe hundreds of millions in India. So much for the 'free' part.
That colonization also requires a massive navy to ensure 'freedom of navigation' which like all massive MIC then requires a strong perception that every other potential navy out there is a threat - which led directly to World War 1 and indirectly then World War 2
But hey - at least the Brits didn't go to war over free trade in opium or somesuch. Or did they?
>No, no, and certainly not, explains Daniel Hannan, a conservative member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom and president of the Institute for Free Trade.
How much opposition did he voice to the UK (and the EU before that) trade restrictions?
Quite a bit it seems. He campaigned for Brexit and for unilateral free trade for the UK afterwards.
Unilateral trade isn't free trade. This economist has already failed.
So he is arguing his view on trade. Not actually free trade. He just stuck a misnomer in what he is discussing.
If the free trade premise is tariffs are always a market disruption, then modifying a theory to excuse foreign tariffs means your theory isn't free trade. At that point you're simply arguing what is the best non free trade system.
Jesse, can you explain what you said here about Milton Friedman? Your point was that under a gold standard, the government needs to use tariffs (or some other measure) to prevent prolonged trade deficits, because that causes deflation, which makes economic growth impossible, right?
Also imagine what these guys are arguing for.
Assume we were on the golf standard and not leveraging the dollar being reserve currency.
Decades of negative trade deficits with a growing population would mean an ever decreasing per capita amount of wealth. So in order to have a growing economy with decades of negative deficits, one would have to accept an inflationary economy.
Friedman also warned against this. Yet that is shown as the outcome of his unilateral policies.
https://reason.com/video/2025/04/08/milton-friedmans-warning-to-doge/?comments=true#comments
under a gold standard, the government needs to use tariffs (or some other measure) to prevent prolonged trade deficits, because that causes deflation, which makes economic growth impossible, right?
If you import more than you export, you have to spend money to do that. Under the gold standard, your gold reserves will be reduced. A smaller money supply = deflation.
But: If your country is attractive to foreign investment, this returns the gold and boosts the economy. Wealthy nations run trade deficits because of this dynamic.
Extreme trade deficits may be problematic for a nation's economy, though most economists don't think so or at least that we are nowhere near that now. Even those economists that think we should manage the economy to correct the trade deficit favor domestic solutions, like deregulation and encouraging saving.
The number of economists that favor protectionism like tariffs to correct this can be counted on one hand. Maybe 2 hands if you include the fabricated ones used by Trump's current trade advisor.
Unilateral trade isn't free trade. This economist has already failed.
This line is getting pretty old. Anyone that has any interest in trade is well aware that economists talk about "unilateral free trade" as a type of free trade.
You're right that bilateral free trade is preferable, but I think we're getting a good idea that our options to attain that are limited and costly. Furthermore, Trump has given many clues that this is not his goal. He wants unfair trade deals in our favor to eliminate our trade deficit which is probably impossible for a wealthy nation....so he's moving in the right direction....
He wants unfair trade deals in our favor to eliminate our trade deficit which is probably impossible for a wealthy nation....so he's moving in the right direction....
I don't think Trump knows what he wants. He's just flailing about. One day he wants to reduce tariffs to zero. Next he wants permanent tariffs for revenue. Then he wants protective tariffs to spur onshoring. Then he's back to zero tariffs. Each one of those goals are mutually exclusive.
Then he wants to encourage foreign investment while eliminating the
trade deficitscapital surpluses that make that possible. Then he tries to tank the stock market to get people to ditch stocks and invest in bonds with a goal of lowering interest rates. Again we've got mutually exclusive goals.And nobody really knows how markets and foreign governments will react.
Truth is he doesn't know what he wants and has no idea of what he is doing. The only bright side is that he can only do damage for three and a half more years.
The only bright side is that he can only do damage for three and a half more years.
What makes you think that?
I've got to believe that after three more years of this schizo bullshit, even republicans will have had enough. I could be wrong.
We've had more than enough of TDS-addled shits whining about Trump.
You mean a third term? I doubt it.
Maybe if general prices are comparable or lower than the beginning of his term, but I doubt it.
Maybe if the stock market is way up compared to the beginning of his term, but I doubt it.
Maybe if Jesse's bullshit about him wanting zero tariffs is true and it actually happens, but I doubt it.
Maybe if the federal budget deficit is reduced compared to the beginning of his term, but I doubt it.
Maybe if our general standard of living is greater compared to the beginning of his term, but I doubt it.
If my doubts are wrong then he might have popular support for a third term.
But I doubt it.
I was thinking more along the lines of internal/military loyalty sufficient for a coup. His supporters in these thread will certainly support/rationalize that.
We don’t even have that (unilateral free trade) in many sectors of the economy, or with many countries. Really, we’re all the proverbial hooker haggling price.
No we don't. We really should begin at home with ending subsidies.
Oh! Look over there!
Check your blind-spot Daniel Hannan of the Institute for Free Trade.
Tell us how ?Free? Domestic Trade is being over regulated and taxed at up to 85% locally and again on export.
What you say is true on both sides of the ocean.
The USA cannot remain productive while being regulated and taxed out of competition.
Precisely why the National Government was granted the Tariff power long before even income tax.
To balance (make fair) trade with nations they have no regulatory or local tax power over with the USA. So unless you have ZERO Domestic Tax and Regulation there shouldn't be ZERO Foreign Tax and Regulation. That is just unfair.
Or simplified...
Why should the Domestic Market have to pick-up the entire National Defense bill (i.e. Fed Budget) instead of the International Market?
Who do you think pays the tariffs?
People in the Foreign Goods Market duh....
Why do you leftards keep asking stupid questions?
Do you think your stupidity is going to make a case for you?
TDS-addled shit Boehm takes one more swing at Trump.
Fuck off and die, Boehm; your act was boring long ago.
Trade agreements are of NO USE OR NEED to lower (cancel) tariffs.
You can't look at tariffs in a vacuum, which is what the author is doing. The stated goal of the Trump admin is to bring industry back to the U.S. If your goal is to keep buying cheap crap from China which quickly finds its way into our garbage dumps, then tariffs will hurt. There have been decades where our own billionaire class has bought up and outsourced our productive capacity. That may be great for the billionaires, but not too good for everyone else. Although, there is all that cheap crap from China.