“trade isn’t some state-level exchange in which one government mugs another. It takes place voluntarily between individuals and businesses.”
…
“”In their criticism of global trade and imports, Vance and the GOP platform don’t mention several important things: the American consumer, private property, and the freedom that people should enjoy to voluntarily exchange goods and services,” he noted. “Some folks call this liberty and the pursuit of happiness: people freely choosing to buy and sell what they want, not what the government dictates.”
And what do we call voluntary exchanges between willing participants? Well, as economist Roy Cordato wrote for the John Locke Foundation in 2018, “all trade, by definition, is reciprocal. It is best to think of a trade as simply two parties coming together for mutual gain with each of them giving up something that they possess for something that they want more.”
So, in order to eliminate trade deficits with other nations that aren’t really a problem to begin with, the Trump administration is hiking tariffs to raise the cost of imported goods so that Americans will buy less of them. That’s interference in the free reciprocal exchanges chosen by consumers and businesses. And the price of that interference comes out of Americans’ pockets. That’s because, as the Tax Foundation’s Alex Durante warns, tariffs are taxes that, while partially paid by foreign firms, are mostly a burden for people in the countries that impose them—especially as they rise to the heights we now see.
“If the US imposes a large enough tariff, the resulting reduction in economic activity would also entail a meaningful increase in unemployment,” adds Durante.”
“The Trump administration has, for the fourth time in history, invoked the war-time Alien Enemies Act of 1798, even though our nation is not at war—and its last use remains one of the most shameful episodes in American history.
That involved President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 in 1942. It was the basis for the internment of around 112,000 people of Japanese descent, 70,000 of whom were American citizens.”
…
“For years, we’ve endured constitutional conservatives’ bloviating about the importance of protecting the sacred principles enshrined in our Constitution. Those include the separation of powers—legislative, executive and judicial checks on one another—and due process. Many of these hypocrites are defending the administration’s policies and bashing a judge for halting the hasty airlift of accused criminal aliens to a prison run by a banana-republic strongman—a directive the president promptly ignored.
Perhaps most of these deportees are criminals and a threat (unlike peaceful Japanese residents who posed no threat whatsoever). They still deserve due process—their day in court, so to speak—to prove they have indeed violated the law. Constitutional conservatives of all people should understand that the government gets things wrong and individuals deserve protection from arbitrary actions by its agents.
We’ve already seen examples of immigrants who were deported based on the government allegedly mistaking a soccer tattoo for gang insignia. Let’s say you were walking around and, based on your attire or ethnic background, the police suspected you were a gang-banger and took you to jail. Wouldn’t your first call be to your lawyer? Don’t you deserve due process to prove you were a passerby before being shipped to Pelican Bay? (And non-citizens generally are considered persons under the Constitution—and also deserve due process.)
The administration isn’t just ignoring these constitutional due-process protections but seems to be actively mocking them. “What were all these young women that were killed and raped by members of (Tren de Aragua)—what was their due process?”” asked Tom Homan, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Murder and rape always are horrific, but everyone still gets a trial to, you know, prove they actually committed the crime.”
China tends to make cheaper things than lots of Americans can buy. Americans tend to make more expensive things. The average Chinese person has less disposable income than the average American, so it doesn’t make sense for them to buy more from the U.S. than the U.S. from China.
“When it comes to implementing those tariffs, Miran repeatedly stresses the need to move deliberately and in ways that “are minimally disruptive to markets and the economy.”
“There is a path by which the Trump Administration can reconfigure the global trading and financial systems to America’s benefit,” Miran wrote at the end of his essay, “but it is narrow, and will require careful planning, precise execution, and attention to steps to minimize adverse consequences.”
“The “reciprocal” tariffs that President Donald Trump announced this week are based on a flagrant fallacy: the idea that there is something inherently suspicious about trade deficits. Unlike many of the positions that Trump has adopted as a politician, this one seems heartfelt and long predates his presidential campaigns. His comments on the subject during the last four decades reflect an unshakable belief that international trade is “fair” only when the dollar value of imports from any given country happens to match the dollar value of U.S. exports to that country.
Trump’s long history of economic illiteracy suggests he is determined to pursue this trade war, which features import taxes that are much steeper and far broader than the ones he imposed during his first term, no matter how much pain it inflicts on American consumers and businesses.”
“As a congressman, he wrote what came to be known as the “McKinley tariff” of 1890, and as president he signed another increase in 1897.
But a funny thing happened after the U.S. came out of the Panic (and subsequent four-year depression) of 1893: Goosed by sharp increases in domestic iron and copper production, Americans had too many goods chasing too few consumers. And McKinley himself began agitating to tear down some of those trade barriers.
“What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad,” he said in September 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. “The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet, and we should sell everywhere we can, and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and productions, and thereby make a greater demand for home labor. The period of exclusiveness is past,” he continued. “The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable….If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed, for revenue or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?”
McKinley’s presidency was ended by an assassin’s bullet the very next day.
Even before his late-life pivot to freer trade, McKinley had long been a champion of reciprocity, i.e., the bilateral, mutually beneficial reduction of targeted, asymmetrical tariffs. Or, as he put it in his first inaugural address, “the opening up of new markets for the products of our country, by granting concessions to the products of other lands that we need and cannot produce ourselves, and which do not involve any loss of labor to our own people, but tend to increase their employment.”
In his second term, Trump has demonstrated less enthusiasm for reciprocity than he has for the other two Rs of traditional protectionism, revenue and restriction. Asked last October by Joe Rogan whether he was serious about replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, Trump said, “Yeah, sure. Why not?”—and then engaged in some historical revisionism.”
…
“the tariff system and perennial adjustments thereof was a cornucopia of corruption, putting the gilded in Gilded Age. Far from being a sophisticated manipulation of import/export duties to nurture nascent industries, the tariff schedule was a Christmas tree decorated by special interests.”
“It’s not inherently wrong for the federal government to refrain from funding an extremely wealthy private institution of higher education, especially one with an endowment of $14.8 billion. But the Trump administration isn’t trying to save money for taxpayers—it’s using the money as leverage to make the university police student expression.”
“As ugly as the stock market losses have been, the big hit from Trump’s tariffs probably haven’t even arrived yet. As always, the stock market is not the economy—it’s an aggregated indicator of what investors think the economy will look like in the future. Right now, they think it will be bad. Really bad.”
…
“In addition to crashing Americans’ retirement accounts and wiping out huge amounts from American companies (Apple and Nike were among the biggest losers in Friday’s rout), Trump’s move will soon raise taxes, wreck supply chains, and make basic goods more expensive or difficult to obtain.
In other words, even if you aren’t affected by the stock market sell-off, you’ll feel the effects of the tariffs before long.
Take each of those things in order. First, the tax increase. Tariffs are a form of taxation. According to the Yale Budget Lab’s analysis, Trump’s tariffs will reduce the average household’s income by nearly $3,800 this year. That’s because lots of things will get more expensive. Tariffs could triple the cost of a new iPhone, for example.
Second, the supply chain chaos. Ryan Peterson is the CEO of Flexport, a tech platform that helps companies with global logistics. He reported last week that 28 percent of the companies in Flexport’s system are “pausing all ocean freight bookings from Asia until there’s more clarity on where tariffs will end up.”
That means that even if some American companies are willing to pay the tariffs to keep supply chains flowing, they may not be able to find importers and shipping services right now.
Finally, the tariffs (and the associated supply chain disruptions) will have an immediate impact on prices and the availability of goods.
“A trade war triggered by Trump’s chaotic tariffs is the same type of aggregate shock as the Covid crisis, but worse,” warns Ben Golub, a professor of economics at Northwestern. As the tariffs degrade the ability of modern international supply chains to function, he wrote on X, the results will be “supply shortages and price spikes.”
To give just one example, consider the morning cup of coffee you might still be nursing. Americans consumed 1.6 billion pounds of coffee last year, but the United States produces only about 11 million pounds annually (all of it in Hawaii).
America also exports a lot of coffee—more than $900 billion of it last year. That’s possible even though we don’t grow very much here, because America-based coffee companies can buy beans from other countries, roast them, and then export them abroad. What are those middle-of-the-supply-chain companies supposed to do? Coffee-drinkers are screwed and coffee exporting companies that employ American workers are doubly boned.
Now repeat that same process for every industry connected to global supply chains. It’s grim.”