News flash: Free trade is a good thing

 

President Trump, by his own declaration, loves tariffs. In fact, tariff is his “favorite word”. Tariffs purportedly produce funds, “billions and billions, more than anybody has ever seen before,” which can be used for essential spending or to reduce taxes and meanwhile will “bring back jobs”.

The president is all in on his enthusiasms. As matters now stand, he is imposing both universal baseline as well as country-specific tariffs, affecting more than $1 trillion of imports. This compares to the mere $380 billion in tariffs passed in 2018 and 2019 by the first Trump administration but will rise to $1.4 trillion when/if the temporary exemptions for Mexico and Canada expire in April.

There is a logic to tariffs that appeals to those with a protectionist bent. If foreign producers are selling in your country and taking profits — profits that could otherwise be earned by domestic enterprises — why not make the cost of doing business higher for them and keep the profits at home?

Yet the history of tariffs is, to put it kindly, dismal. The 1930 Smoot-Harley tariff is America’s best-known and most instructive experience with protectionism. In 1929, the League of Nations passed a resolution declaring that tariffs were destructive and should be ended by all. When Smoot-Hawley was introduced, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned against it. After the bill passed, 1,028 economists and even some business leaders like Henry Ford urged a veto.

President Hoover termed the measure “vicious, extortionate and obnoxious”. He signed it anyway at the urging of his advisors. Americans, especially the agricultural sector, were facing a perceived problem with overproduction, mainly due to electrification and other labor-saving innovations. Republicans generally agreed that prices were too low and it would help pull us out of our economic slump if American producers were shielded from foreign competition.

Big mistake. Trading partners had warned of retaliation, and indeed boycotts and reciprocal trading restrictions soon broke out. Canada, our most loyal trading partner, imposed tariffs on 30% of our products and formed closer economic ties with the British Empire. France, Britain and Germany all formed new trading alliances.

Yet initially, the medicine seemed to be working. Factory payrolls, construction contracts and industrial production all profited from the reduced market competition.

But the loss of the inherent advantages of trading soon became clear. From 1929 to 1933, US imports fell 66% and exports decreased 61%. World trade nearly ground to a halt, falling by two-thirds from 1929 to 1934.

Unemployment was about 8% when Smoot-Harley was enacted, but the promises to lower it further never panned out. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931 and 25% in 1932-33, falling back to pre-Depression levels only during World War II.

Tariffs didn’t cause the Great Depression, but they clearly deepened and prolonged it. Without Smoot-Hawley, it might have just been another temporary recession, not much worse than many other economic downturns in our history.

The take-home message is that free trade is a voluntary interaction that reliably promotes prosperity, both in theory and in practice. It is a classic win-win for participants, in contrast to protectionism which is based on the principle that the stronger party wins by defeating the weaker one.

The 2018-19 tariffs imposed by Trump and expanded by the Biden administration proved the point once again, reducing long-term GDP by 0.2% and resulting in the loss of 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

Nonetheless, Trump still favors strength and domination, with an emphasis on negotiations where he “holds the cards”. The lack of success last time has not dissuaded him from unleashing a barrage of tariffs with impositions, pauses, increases, suspensions and escalations that have left producers around the world desperately scrambling to protect their businesses by anticipating his next move.

Trump is playing with fire here. If he does ignite a trade war that results in another downturn, he may find that the American economy is not as resilient as it once was. Decades of uncontrolled deficit spending have left us deeply in debt and without the reserves necessary to withstand much more fiscal abuse.

The lessons of history and the laws of economics are clear. Tariffs don’t work. Proceed with caution.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 66 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    The average man on the street will tell you, “We don’t make anything, anymore.” They’re just mistaken. The United States is a manufacturing powerhouse. Yes, it would be great if we made even more. Donald Trump has been on the right track when it comes to cutting regulations, to make the USA a more desirable country to operate from. But this whole tariff mess is not the right way forward.

    I just watched a video where Paul of Combat Veteran Reacts reports on how Trump’s trade tariffs are starting to push Japan and South Korea into the arms of China. Maybe this is what J.D. Vance means by the United States moving its emphasis from Europe to the Pacific. It’s just a start, but Japan and South Korea need to do something to protect their export markets, so if the U.S. pushes them out of the U.S. market, it is in their interest to join in a free (or freer) trade zone with China.

    Not sure this is a smart movie for them, considering China also has tariffs that may be higher than ours.

    I don’t think they could be higher than the 25% or 50% that Trump is proposing.

    Here’s a start:

    What is the import duty tariff in China?

    Duties: Calculated based on the CIF value (Cost, Insurance, and Freight), duties add a percentage to the total value of the shipment, often between 5% and 25%. VAT (Value-Added Tax): Applied on top of the product value and duties. For most imports, China’s VAT rate is 13%.

    So, with import duties and VAT, could be at least 38%. And that’s just so far.

    I don’t know the calculations of all the tariffs and taxes combined, but I know that Japan and South Korea already trade with China, so it must be profitable. So with the U.S. raising it’s tariffs to a minimum of 25% across the board, it cannot be a better deal than those countries are already getting with China.

    Or, it could be empty threats. Who knows?

    Supposedly, both Japan and South Korea have been increasing their defense capacities due to concerns about China. Why would they then turn to increasing trade, which would likely serve to increase China’s military the same way our trade with them has?

    For the same reasons that the U.S. has been increasing its defense capacities against China while at the same time increasing our trade with them.

    Just the usual stupidity, then.  Too bad their proximity doesn’t seem to make them more cautious.

    • #61
  2. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    The average man on the street will tell you, “We don’t make anything, anymore.” They’re just mistaken. The United States is a manufacturing powerhouse. Yes, it would be great if we made even more. Donald Trump has been on the right track when it comes to cutting regulations, to make the USA a more desirable country to operate from. But this whole tariff mess is not the right way forward.

    I just watched a video where Paul of Combat Veteran Reacts reports on how Trump’s trade tariffs are starting to push Japan and South Korea into the arms of China. Maybe this is what J.D. Vance means by the United States moving its emphasis from Europe to the Pacific. It’s just a start, but Japan and South Korea need to do something to protect their export markets, so if the U.S. pushes them out of the U.S. market, it is in their interest to join in a free (or freer) trade zone with China.

    Not sure this is a smart movie for them, considering China also has tariffs that may be higher than ours.

    I’ll bet they are conflicted over it themselves. But when Trump is doing stupid things and treating our allies no better than our adversaries, or sometimes worse than our adversaries, they may be justified in hedging their bets.   

    • #62
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    The average man on the street will tell you, “We don’t make anything, anymore.” They’re just mistaken. The United States is a manufacturing powerhouse. Yes, it would be great if we made even more. Donald Trump has been on the right track when it comes to cutting regulations, to make the USA a more desirable country to operate from. But this whole tariff mess is not the right way forward.

    I just watched a video where Paul of Combat Veteran Reacts reports on how Trump’s trade tariffs are starting to push Japan and South Korea into the arms of China. Maybe this is what J.D. Vance means by the United States moving its emphasis from Europe to the Pacific. It’s just a start, but Japan and South Korea need to do something to protect their export markets, so if the U.S. pushes them out of the U.S. market, it is in their interest to join in a free (or freer) trade zone with China.

    Not sure this is a smart movie for them, considering China also has tariffs that may be higher than ours.

    I’ll bet they are conflicted over it themselves. But when Trump is doing stupid things and treating our allies no better than our adversaries, or sometimes worse than our adversaries, they may be justified in hedging their bets.

    That’s hedging their bets?  Hah.

    • #63
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    Also, if exports have increased, then domestic production for domestic consumption may have actually decreased.

    Why would that necessarily be so? Domestic production is not limited by anything other than people’s ingenuity and capacity to work. As far as I can tell, domestic consumption has skyrocketed in the U.S. When I was growing up, not every household had a car, air conditioning, TV, and certainly no cell phones, computers, or microwave ovens, and few people traveled on airplanes or traveled long distances at all. The average American lives better than John D. Rockefeller did at the beginning of the 20th century.

    You don’t see it?

    Everything that’s exported must first be produced. If most of what’s produced is exported, then domestic consumption of domestic production is necessarily low.

    What people are consuming now is far more imported than in the past. Cell phones, computers, etc, weren’t being produced in the US in the 1950s, and they aren’t now. The increased CONSUMPTION of those has zero to do with US manufacturing/production.

    Explain the bolded part. 

    We should import what we can get cheaper from overseas. Then everybody has more money. Except they don’t because the Fed is always producing inflation. 

    • #64
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I’ve figured it out.

    Outlaw importing and exporting and turn up the inflation. Problem solved.

    cEntRal pLAnNing MakEs oUr liVEs beTTEr

    • #65
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    • #66
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.