3 ms·

> The understanding that tariffs are foolish is a universal among economists and is not remotely a partisan issue. The obvious endgame is not for the US to kee

> The understanding that tariffs are foolish is a universal among economists and is not remotely a partisan issue. The obvious endgame is not for the US to keep these tax increases. The administration stated the goals fairly clearly, and almost(?) none of them are controversial: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-confronting-chinas-unfair-trade-policies/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do... Tariffs are leverage. Economists not liking them is a lot like an economist pointing out that manufacturing bullets has a fair bit of dis-utility. It's true at face value but you might want to use them for something like if there's, you know, a war going on. If a war is ongoing and an economist wants to talk about how bullets have a lot of dis-utility when we could be manufacturing more spoons, that's fine I guess. But it misses the whole point. Anti-tax Republicans including the current admin obviously don't want tariffs around either. But they do want to use them for a short while as a tool to get China to stop the practices outlines above. No one in the republican administration intends to impose the tariffs for the sake of collecting tax revenue or anything like that.

resters 8y ago
Interesting point. It is probably the most charitable way of looking at how tariffs could possibly have been instituted by a party that claims to value economic freedom. We're told that finally a master negotiator is at the helm and that he will renegotiate trade deals that leave the US at a disadvantage. One data point that offers evidence counter to that view is the president's vocal opposition to NAFTA, a deal that resulted in a large (mostly) free trade zone and lower tariffs on US goods than on those from the other participants. I think the most likely explanation is that the tariffs are viewed as a way for the executive branch to unilaterally redistribute wealth to key swing states that have been hit hard by globalization. If your speculation is true, then the administration must believe not just that escalating tariffs will move trade negotiations to the brink and will allow the US to negotiate freer trade... but it must also believe that the negotiated freer trade will be economically significant nationally AND to the swing state areas hit hard by globalization. It is my understanding that if the above is true about the administration's beliefs, that the numbers quite obviously do not add up. So while the US would certainly be better off with freer trade, the economic cost of tariffs is not enough to move the needle economically in a significant way (per an analysis done by Reason magazine). This directly contradicts the claims made by the administration. So unless there is a deep factual discrepancy between the analysis conducted by Reason magazine and the analysis the administration is doing, the tariffs seem intended mainly as a tactic to rally key groups of voters, and there appears to actually be no broader strategic significance or possible negotiated outcome that would achieve the goals the administration claims will be possible via the tariff escalation. That said, the tariffs are probably a smart way to try to win a few elections. They allow the public to view other nations as adversaries and to rally behind the US "winning" over other nations. They also prop up the fiction that trading partners are in fact adversaries rather than cooperators. Such adversarial rhetoric is obviously a useful political tool. So since this kind of us vs them, zero-sum rhetoric has been such a key element of the administration's message, I find it unlikely that it would ever seem desirable to remove the tariffs and to reframe the US relationship with other nations as constructive rather than as adversarial. Why give up such a useful enmity if it's working politically? My concern is that the tariffs will cause unexpected and sudden economic harm, which could quite suddenly cause a lot of the players to lose their perspective and actually begin to act adversarially. FWIW tariffs also reduce trade cooperation between nations and reduce the disincentive for armed conflict.

resters 8y ago

Interesting point. It is probably the most charitable way of looking at how tariffs could possibly have been instituted by a party that claims to value economic freedom. We're told that finally a master negotiator is at the helm and that he will renegotiate trade deals that leave the US at a disadvantage. One data point that offers evidence counter to that view is the president's vocal opposition to NAFTA, a deal that resulted in a large (mostly) free trade zone and lower tariffs on US goods than on those from the other participants. I think the most likely explanation is that the tariffs are viewed as a way for the executive branch to unilaterally redistribute wealth to key swing states that have been hit hard by globalization. If your speculation is true, then the administration must believe not just that escalating tariffs will move trade negotiations to the brink and will allow the US to negotiate freer trade... but it must also believe that the negotiated freer trade will be economically significant nationally AND to the swing state areas hit hard by globalization. It is my understanding that if the above is true about the administration's beliefs, that the numbers quite obviously do not add up. So while the US would certainly be better off with freer trade, the economic cost of tariffs is not enough to move the needle economically in a significant way (per an analysis done by Reason magazine). This directly contradicts the claims made by the administration. So unless there is a deep factual discrepancy between the analysis conducted by Reason magazine and the analysis the administration is doing, the tariffs seem intended mainly as a tactic to rally key groups of voters, and there appears to actually be no broader strategic significance or possible negotiated outcome that would achieve the goals the administration claims will be possible via the tariff escalation. That said, the tariffs are probably a smart way to try to win a few elections. They allow the public to view other nations as adversaries and to rally behind the US "winning" over other nations. They also prop up the fiction that trading partners are in fact adversaries rather than cooperators. Such adversarial rhetoric is obviously a useful political tool. So since this kind of us vs them, zero-sum rhetoric has been such a key element of the administration's message, I find it unlikely that it would ever seem desirable to remove the tariffs and to reframe the US relationship with other nations as constructive rather than as adversarial. Why give up such a useful enmity if it's working politically? My concern is that the tariffs will cause unexpected and sudden economic harm, which could quite suddenly cause a lot of the players to lose their perspective and actually begin to act adversarially. FWIW tariffs also reduce trade cooperation between nations and reduce the disincentive for armed conflict.