There’s Still No Economic Case for New Tariffs

[KenH]

"Whoever leads the incoming Trump administration’s trade team faces a difficult task. In the face of theoretical flaws, historical experience, and, frankly, common sense, they will have to convince Americans that a policy of deliberate inefficiency and increased costs through higher tariffs will somehow make the country better off. But prosperity through higher taxes on imported goods is neither an intuitive nor easily swallowed argument—and mountains of economic evidence show why.
...
The benefits of free trade and the costs of tariffs remain straightforward, rooted in compelling economic logic, and supported by piles of empirical research. Tariffs’ net economic harms are one of the few issues on which almost all economists — left, right, and center — agree. Raising costs and introducing barriers to the efficient production of goods — and inviting other countries to respond in kind — will harm American consumers and businesses and ultimately harm the US economy overall. Try as protectionists might to prove otherwise, protectionism remains an economic loser, and no amount of alchemy will change that fact."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-teams-case-new-tariffs-remains-daunting

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"Whoever leads the incoming Trump administration’s trade team faces a difficult task. In the face of theoretical flaws, historical experience, and, frankly, common sense, they will have to convince Americans that a policy of deliberate inefficiency and increased costs through higher tariffs will somehow make the country better off. But prosperity through higher taxes on imported goods is neither an intuitive nor easily swallowed argument—and mountains of economic evidence show why.
...
The benefits of free trade and the costs of tariffs remain straightforward, rooted in compelling economic logic, and supported by piles of empirical research. Tariffs’ net economic harms are one of the few issues on which almost all economists — left, right, and center — agree. Raising costs and introducing barriers to the efficient production of goods — and inviting other countries to respond in kind — will harm American consumers and businesses and ultimately harm the US economy overall. Try as protectionists might to prove otherwise, protectionism remains an economic loser, and no amount of alchemy will change that fact."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-teams-case-new-tariffs-remains-daunting

Amen

 

[Benjamin]

Sorry my pessimistic progressive friends, but, Trump has made his economic case for tariffs, based on fair trade and a level playing field for a change, and is putting America First, and the people have agreed with him. So, I suggest you take a back seat or find a safe room because there is a new movement coming that is headed toward American Exceptionalism and it is coming strong!

 

[Reynolds]

"Whoever leads the incoming Trump administration’s trade team faces a difficult task. In the face of theoretical flaws, historical experience, and, frankly, common sense, they will have to convince Americans that a policy of deliberate inefficiency and increased costs through higher tariffs will somehow make the country better off. But prosperity through higher taxes on imported goods is neither an intuitive nor easily swallowed argument—and mountains of economic evidence show why.
...
The benefits of free trade and the costs of tariffs remain straightforward, rooted in compelling economic logic, and supported by piles of empirical research. Tariffs’ net economic harms are one of the few issues on which almost all economists — left, right, and center — agree. Raising costs and introducing barriers to the efficient production of goods — and inviting other countries to respond in kind — will harm American consumers and businesses and ultimately harm the US economy overall. Try as protectionists might to prove otherwise, protectionism remains an economic loser, and no amount of alchemy will change that fact."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-teams-case-new-tariffs-remains-daunting

Tariff away. The more the better.

 

[KenH]

my pessimistic progressive friends

1) I assume that you are not including me in that list as being "progressive", as it is very clear from my policy positions that I am a minarchist.

2) Progressives(Progressivism being the heart of the Left) can be just as bad as National Conservatives(National Conservatism being the heart of MAGA) in pushing for tariffs.

3) True conservatism, even true libertarianism is what Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan stood for. Ronald Reagan said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

4) I suggest that anyone who is interested in learning about true conservatism, true libertarianism, (limited government as opposed to the big, intrusive government pushed by progressives and National Conservatives) read these two books that shaped my philosophy of government decades ago:

1) The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater.

2) In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, by Frank S. Meyer.

 

[KenH]

the people have agreed with him

Well, half the country voted for him, but I doubt all of them had their vote driven by tariffs.

 

[KenH]

I suggest you take a back seat or find a safe room

I have never bowed the knee to a politician nor to his acolytes, and I am not about to start doing so with Donald Trump and his acolytes.

 

[KenH]

toward American Exceptionalism

The United States is a world empire in decline. There has never been anything "exceptional" about the United States and never will be. The United States is just another in a long line of world empires that have risen and fallen over time.

The United States became a world empire after World War II, as the only major industrial nation that hadn't been bombed to smithereens, and reached its zenith during the 1990s after the fall of its competitor, the Soviet Union.

A world empire cannot sustain its place with a $36 TRILLION (and climbing) national debt, which far exceeds its economic output, and no prospect for the American people being willing to pay the price to bring the spending spree to an end, nor being willing to raise the revenues to pay for the spending spree. Thus, I would not be surprised at all to see the national debt up around $50 TRILLION in November of 2028.

 

[KenH]

@Benjamin
Have you ever watched the movie, "Cromwell", with Richard Harris in the lead part? If not, you should, especially the ending, when Cromwell sounds like an early version of Donald Trump. It is one of my favorite movies, the acting by Harris and Alec Guinness, as King Charles I, is exceptional.

This is my favorite scene, moving toward the climax of the movie, with the line "The king is not England, and England is not the king."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sorry my pessimistic progressive friends, but, Trump has made his economic case for tariffs, based on fair trade and a level playing field for a change, and is putting America First, and the people have agreed with him. So, I suggest you take a back seat or find a safe room because there is a new movement coming that is headed toward American Exceptionalism and it is coming strong!

What do you mean by friend…. Your not that.

 

[David Koberstein]

"Let me print and issue money and I care not who makes the laws"
Mayer Amshel Rothshild

Shalom

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"Let me print and issue money and I care not who makes the laws"
Mayer Amshel Rothshild

Shalom

Oye Vey

 

[ParticularWife]

"Whoever leads the incoming Trump administration’s trade team faces a difficult task. In the face of theoretical flaws, historical experience, and, frankly, common sense, they will have to convince Americans that a policy of deliberate inefficiency and increased costs through higher tariffs will somehow make the country better off. But prosperity through higher taxes on imported goods is neither an intuitive nor easily swallowed argument—and mountains of economic evidence show why.
...
The benefits of free trade and the costs of tariffs remain straightforward, rooted in compelling economic logic, and supported by piles of empirical research. Tariffs’ net economic harms are one of the few issues on which almost all economists — left, right, and center — agree. Raising costs and introducing barriers to the efficient production of goods — and inviting other countries to respond in kind — will harm American consumers and businesses and ultimately harm the US economy overall. Try as protectionists might to prove otherwise, protectionism remains an economic loser, and no amount of alchemy will change that fact."

- rest of article at https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-teams-case-new-tariffs-remains-daunting

Many things in life matter more than the abstract theories of economics. The idea of a completely 'free market' is a utopian myth—markets are always undergirded by force, power, and the structures that enforce property rights. These frameworks aren’t neutral; they reflect the cultural and political priorities of a society. And let me be clear: preserving a way of life, protecting a community, and confronting threats to social cohesion must take precedence over the pursuit of cheap consumer goods.

This isn’t about mindlessly endorsing tariffs or interventionism for their own sake. I’ve studied at the Mises Institute, read every page of Mises, I have Jeff Deist's phone number. But there’s more to society than Ricardo’s equations. My perspective aligns with those who recognize that the market exists within a broader cultural and moral framework. Paul Gottfried has rightly criticized libertarians for their failure to grasp the importance of historical continuity and social identity. Neema Parvini similarly exposes how market fundamentalism can ignore the power dynamics that shape real-world economics.

Yes, I’m sympathetic to the principles of market anarchism, but my support for market intervention stems from an awareness of these broader factors—not ignorance of economic theory. Society is not simply a mechanism for optimizing the production of widgets or minimizing the cost of hats. Libertarians and liberals (including Boomer conservatives, who are actually just liberals twenty years ago) too often reduce human existence to spreadsheets and supply curves. Life is richer, more complex, and bound to higher purposes than their abstractions allow.

Also, I'm flat out not listening to this from any leftist. No Democrat is going to lecture me on the virtues of laissez faire, the hypocrisy and gall of it is actually infuriating.

 

[KenH]

Many things in life matter more than the abstract theories of economics. The idea of a completely 'free market' is a utopian myth—markets are always undergirded by force, power, and the structures that enforce property rights. These frameworks aren’t neutral; they reflect the cultural and political priorities of a society. And let me be clear: preserving a way of life, protecting a community, and confronting threats to social cohesion must take precedence over the pursuit of cheap consumer goods.

This isn’t about mindlessly endorsing tariffs or interventionism for their own sake. I’ve studied at the Mises Institute, read every page of Mises, I have Jeff Deist's phone number. But there’s more to society than Ricardo’s equations. My perspective aligns with those who recognize that the market exists within a broader cultural and moral framework. Paul Gottfried has rightly criticized libertarians for their failure to grasp the importance of historical continuity and social identity. Neema Parvini similarly exposes how market fundamentalism can ignore the power dynamics that shape real-world economics.

Yes, I’m sympathetic to the principles of market anarchism, but my support for market intervention stems from an awareness of these broader factors—not ignorance of economic theory. Society is not simply a mechanism for optimizing the production of widgets or minimizing the cost of hats. Libertarians and liberals (including Boomer conservatives, who are actually just liberals twenty years ago) too often reduce human existence to spreadsheets and supply curves. Life is richer, more complex, and bound to higher purposes than their abstractions allow.

Also, I'm flat out not listening to this from any leftist. No Democrat is going to lecture me on the virtues of laissez faire, the hypocrisy and gall of it is actually infuriating.

As a minarchist classical liberal libertarian, I obviously disagree with much of your post. However, if the Lord wills, I have decided that after 60 years of following politics since 1964, including being the Libertarian Party congressional candidate in my district in 2014, that I wish to drastically curtail my interest in politics, including no longer discussing politics, philosophically or otherwise, on this board, including any old threads of mine on this board from the past.

I prefer to do as Abraham and the other heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11, and confess that I am a stranger and pilgrim on this present earth, and seek a better country, a heavenly one, that my heavenly Father has prepared for me and all of His elect.

 

[ParticularWife]

As a minarchist classical liberal libertarian, I obviously disagree with much of your post. However, if the Lord wills, I have decided that after 60 years of following politics since 1964, including being the Libertarian Party congressional candidate in my district in 2014, that I wish to drastically curtail my interest in politics, including no longer discussing politics, philosophically or otherwise, on this board, including any old threads of mine on this board from the past.

I prefer to do as Abraham and the other heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11, and confess that I am a stranger and pilgrim on this present earth, and seek a better country, a heavenly one, that my heavenly Father has prepared for me and all of His elect.

Although I'm not a libertarian my father worked in the Ron Paul campaign. I've met Gary North, Paul's chief economist and editor of the Ron Paul Homeschooling curriculum (which my father used with me). I suggest C. Jay Engel, as he's a Mises Institute guy and Reformed ex-libertarian.

I am not a fan of bureaucracy and centralization. Although I believe libertarianism is ultimately impossible and full of weird assumptions, I'm highly sympathetic with townie, Anglo-liberalism of the Levellers. The political mechanisms should be much more decentralized, in fact, I support more secession, nullification and revolution than the minarchist types are comfortable with. But I do believe in corporate political duties, I reject universal rights and laws, and am against free speech and religious neutrality.

I don't really care about people's political views because, as an elite theorist, I know their opinions don't matter and will usually just be whatever people in power tell them to think.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As a minarchist classical liberal libertarian, I obviously disagree with much of your post. However, if the Lord wills, I have decided that after 60 years of following politics since 1964, including being the Libertarian Party congressional candidate in my district in 2014, that I wish to drastically curtail my interest in politics, including no longer discussing politics, philosophically or otherwise, on this board, including any old threads of mine on this board from the past.

I prefer to do as Abraham and the other heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11, and confess that I am a stranger and pilgrim on this present earth, and seek a better country, a heavenly one, that my heavenly Father has prepared for me and all of His elect.

Brother….everything in worldly life comes down to KING PROFITS…ideology be hanged. Probity is dead. This is the true motivation to worldly economics.

Now that’s human instinct to dominance, but you and I know that there is far more to it don’t we, so let’s not retire to our armchair because God is in control and you are still breathing. It’s temporal and it is eternal and cynicism plays no part on Gods stage. I have the greatest respect for my wife who, even though she suffers greatly from stage 4, stands up each day and is an active participant in life and I’m grateful to her for being my life’s partner. My favorite scripture, one that I live by is in Genesis, ‘Shall not the Creator of all do right.’

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Although I'm not a libertarian my father worked in the Ron Paul campaign. I've met Gary North, Paul's chief economist and editor of the Ron Paul Homeschooling curriculum (which my father used with me). I suggest C. Jay Engel, as he's a Mises Institute guy and Reformed ex-libertarian.

I am not a fan of bureaucracy and centralization. Although I believe libertarianism is ultimately impossible and full of weird assumptions, I'm highly sympathetic with townie, Anglo-liberalism of the Levellers. The political mechanisms should be much more decentralized, in fact, I support more secession, nullification and revolution than the minarchist types are comfortable with. But I do believe in corporate political duties, I reject universal rights and laws, and am against free speech and religious neutrality.

I don't really care about people's political views because, as an elite theorist, I know their opinions don't matter and will usually just be whatever people in power tell them to think.

Wow, you are against Free Speech!?! Really, then why are you living in the United States?

 

[ParticularWife]

Wow, you are against Free Speech!?! Really, then why are you living in the United States?

I don't recognize the legitimacy of the American government. The Puritans didn't believe in free speech, either. And free speech is nonsense that never existed, much like free markets, it's a liberal fantasy used to justify porn, communism and blasphemy on television. I don't actually take the ideas of liberalism, in it's universalist form, seriously, it's a human created political cult and state religion. Neutrality is a myth. The fake news and universities are priests of the state, there's no such thing as a public-private distinction. The entire set of assumptions in liberalism are nonsense, though some particular ideas associated with it (such as economics or international relations theory of classical liberalism) are legitimate on their own merits.
Show me a highly decentralized, anti-leftist, Reformed Christian country and I'll move. Until then, we're going to have to take this one back from the Satanists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't recognize the legitimacy of the American government. The Puritans didn't believe in free speech, either. And free speech is nonsense that never existed, much like free markets, it's a liberal fantasy used to justify porn, communism and blasphemy on television. I don't actually take the ideas of liberalism, in it's universalist form, seriously, it's a human created political cult and state religion. Neutrality is a myth. The fake news and universities are priests of the state, there's no such thing as a public-private distinction. The entire set of assumptions in liberalism are nonsense, though some particular ideas associated with it (such as economics or international relations theory of classical liberalism) are legitimate on their own merits.
Show me a highly decentralized, anti-leftist, Reformed Christian country and I'll move. Until then, we're going to have to take this one back from the Satanists.

Now I’m going to attempt to measure my words so as to not go off track and appear to be abusive, something that I’ve been accused of in the past so I will tredlightly…but could you please answer a question (for clarification) as a qualifier?

“Who do you honestly believe rules any nation? The apparent rulers, or the real ones behind the scenes who manipulate a nations finances for their own benefit?

 

[ParticularWife]

“Who do you honestly believe rules any nation? The apparent rulers, or the real ones behind the scenes who manipulate a nations finances for their own benefit?

Elites always control every institution in any society. It's a matter of whether they're friends, or enemies. Pointing out that politicians are self interested is irrelevant. Any institution is. If you don't fill the power vacuum your enemies will. You don't have a third option.
The Roman Empire and European imperialism were great for Christianity, by the way. God often does things in ways that upset Anglo modern sentiments.