Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[Hammster]

Well, if your conservative arguments are so smart, perhaps you could make one.

I did. I agreed with the OP. Tariffs should be equal.

 

[Hammster]

Many have deemed them that way for years. It is not like some are making a concerted effort to understand them.

We understand them. Hence, my comment.

 

[Hammster]

when did the Republicans abandon liberal economics? They were the central organizing of the party since at least Reagan.

Irrelevant. Thus it is void.

 

[Hammster]

He could have done the exact opposite and his followers would still shill it.

I bet you can’t prove that.

 

[Hammster]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/02/stock-market-today-live-updates-trump-tariffs.html

U.S. stock futures cratered as President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs of at least 10% and even higher for some countries, raising the risks of a global trade war that hits the already sputtering U.S. economy.​

​

Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 751 points, or 1.8%. S&P 500 futures dropped 3%. Nasdaq-100 futures lost 3.8%.​

​

Shares of multinational companies tumbled in extended trading. Nike lost 7% and Apple dropped 6%. Shares of big sellers of imported goods were among the hardest hit. Five Below lost 11% and Gap plunged 12%. Tech shares dropped in an overall risk-off mood, with Nvidia off 4% and Tesla down 5%.​

​

Investors flee U.S. stocks as markets react sharply to Trump's tariff plan

Initial market indications early Wednesday evening were that many investors had expected Trump’s tariffs to be far less expansive.

www.nbcnews.com

Global markets reacted sharply and swiftly after President Donald Trump revealed his much-anticipated tariff plans Wednesday, with investors fleeing U.S. stock indexes and companies that rely on global supply chains seeing their stocks plummet.​

​

The ETF (exchange-traded fund) that tracks the S&P 500 plunged more than 2.7%. The fund that tracks the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 slid more than 3.5%, and the fund tracking the Dow indicates it would drop more than 415 points at tomorrow's opening bell.​

​

Those indices just endured their worst quarter in years in large part because of growing concern about the economic impacts of Trump's expected tariff plan.​

​

Guess we will see how this works out.

The stock market will correct itself.

 

[Hammster]

Tariffs hurt ordinary people, not billionaires.

Then why do you support them for other countries, but not the US?

 

[Belk]

We understand them. Hence, my comment.

<Looks at the stock market>

Do tell.

 

[stevil]

Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like, until it came to tariffs

All of them, They've all said this?

Some of them don't like heavy taxes on the poor,
Some don't like flat taxes

Or am I just imagining that?

 

[FreeinChrist]

CNBC Anchor: Trump's Tariff Announcement Is 'Worse Than Worst-Case Scenario'

“The market reaction after hours ― I’ve never seen anything like it," host Jon Fortt said.

www.huffpost.com

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Since the tariffs are reciprocal - (def. Expressing mutual action or relationship) - It is an easy way to reduce US tariffs - reduce yours.

Except they're not. The value that Trump is using to calculate a country's "tariffs" that he's reciprocating is actually the trade deficit (specifically the ratio of our goods trade deficit with the country to our total imports from the country). And everyone is getting 10% at minimum, regardless.

Lesotho, for example, does not actually place a 99% tariff on US imports. They just don't buy much of anything from us (being a small, impoverished country), so the ratio of trade deficit to imports approaches 1.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Irrelevant. Thus it is void.

It is? I don't think so. It was the ideological commitment of the GOP to liberal economics that drove them to support free trade and the lowering of tarifs for years and years. Why has the GOP shifted its economic ideology to 1890?

 

[Richard T]

So the charts in the article cherry pick products and countries. I could do the same for the USA. The tariffs are way overboard, well beyond reciprocal.

From the link:

He’s already scored one huge win: rather than face the new tariffs, Israel announced yesterday that it is dropping ALL tariffs on U.S. imports. Think of all the years of effort put into negotiating “free trade deals” that weren’t even really free. President Trump just pulled off a 100% free trade deal without having to negotiate at all.​

Since the tariffs are reciprocal - (def. Expressing mutual action or relationship) - It is an easy way to reduce US tariffs - reduce yours.

Common sense.

So for their efforts Israel's tariffs are 17% https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-03-2025/ The tariffs are punitive and unrealistic, they are not reciprocal. Trump will probably lift/reduce them in a week or less for many countries. The markets seems to think this. Japan down just 3%.

 

[NxNW]

Liberal arguments are henceforth deemed stupid and invalid.

Hard to argue with logic like that, especially when Trump is putting tariffs on uninhibited islands!

 

[NxNW]

I did. I agreed with the OP. Tariffs should be equal.

Why aren't Trump's then?

 

[NxNW]

The stock market will correct itself.

Obviously you don't understand what a correction is.

 

[BPPLEE]

Hard to argue with logic like that, especially when Trump is putting tariffs on uninhibited islands!

I’m glad to hear that the islands feel free to speak their minds

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm curious as I said, does ANY country have a real trade deficit with the US, maybe it's just me, but expecting Canadians to pay as much as the us with 8X's the population, though we end up paying 10X's more per capita. Funny how a country so much more massive only spends 105 billion vs canada's arund 120+ billion hmmm...sounds to me like the US is ripping off canada.

 

[Nithavela]

I bet you can’t prove that.

You can bet that I won't ever try to prove anything to you.

 

[Richard T]

To some other points:


The point isn't lost on anybody. Nobody pays attention to it because it, at best, is useless, and more likely, is a bit of dishonest rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Some products folks can't stop buying - at some point, you're going to need a new car. Or a new computer. Or a new phone. Or new clothes. Sure, maybe you can delay the purchase or buy second hand, but that's only going to kick the can down the road a bit. At some point, somebody's going to have to buy a new one to replace the old one that doesn't work anymore. After all, "second hand" isn't a thing unless somebody buys it new in the first place. That person now pays higher prices... for what? So that 10-20 years, maybe some of those supply chains will shake out in a way that moves some of the manufacturing back onshore? Ok, what about the 10-20 years in between? And what about the supply chains that don't move on shore? Those products just got more expensive, with no upside.

But say people stop buying those things, or delay those purchases. There were a lot of people previously involved in the selling and delivery of those products, who now have less business. Overall, this triggers a decline in economic activity, which is recessionary. HOORAY! And it falls disproportionately on those with less income. DOUBLE HOORAY!

 

[Richard T]

The New World Order likes cooperation and globalization. This is the default position of both democrats and republicans. before Trump the last one that challenged the free trade assumptions was perhaps as far back as Sen. Gephardt when he ran for President. (1980s) or Ross Perot. Trump always stood out because he does not care much about globalization at all.

So, many Americans were left behind by globalists (which increases wealth concentrations) and Trump become popular. He branded MAGA and really has some serious believers. Rather than succeed, I think the USA is more likely to become like some of the 1960s, South American dictators, that decided to go inward looking for production rather than be dependent on the Western nations. Most if not all had dismal results. Smaller nations especially have to be tied into the world system.

"Liberation day" and "golden age" are likely more doublespeak terms just like "inflation reduction Act" or even "affordable care" health insurance.

It is however, possible that Trump is using these tariffs to negotiate better deals. Wall Street seems to be somewhat ignoring these overreaching tariffs. Japan only down 3% today. If the tariffs were seen as lasting, I think 30% or more would be appropriate.
To those that think reciprocal tariffs can be measured I would ask how? It would be easier if truly it was just tariffs, but otherwise it takes months of analysis to even come close to knowing what fair might be because it is non tariff barriers that are in play and these do not have hard money figures. The trade balance can be measured easily, but trade in goods and services is never supposed to be equal either all the time. The balancing happens with investment and also with currency rates over time. Suppose coffee or sugar shoot up drastically because of a drought. The world shifts towards certain countries and trade deficits climb for those in drought and go to surplus for those with no drought. One would have to adjust all the time.
There is a conservative case to be made for some tariffs. The main justification is for security. Yes, you need drug manufacturing, metals, defense, and even agriculture, etc. for defensive purposes. Israel should subsidize its kibbutz. It is a way of life for some and important for Israel. Likewise, our farmers are often compensated with subsidies.

When farm subsidies occur in US or EU, for exports of corn or other ag products, the poor developing country farmer often gets no subsidy and can no longer compete. With no other prospects some subsidies actually can starve them. So the system is not going to ever balance completely. Trump was not wrong to try but unless he loosens things up fairly quickly and quits with all the hard percentages and talk, the USA will be in for a rough ride. Few are going to bring factories back. It takes lead times of a year or two to source a factory and who know when Trump or even the next President may reverse course.

Think too that huge manufacturers will just shift production because they have facilities all around the world. I saw a company that made candy in both the USA and EU. Because they ship to Canada, with higher tariffs there for stuff coming from the USA, they will simply add another shift in the EU factories and lay off the Americans that were needed for the Canadian production. Smaller businesses often centered in single nations however may be stuck in a high tariff location like Vietnam. Great, efficient producers can really be hurt.

Trade policy too might destabilize some countries leading to unrest or at a minimum hatred toward the USA. Tesla is hurt now, will coke and Starbucks be next? So quite a shift in policy. Trump's policies are too much, too far, too fast, and in some cases involve the wrong nations. They are mercantilist if he does not make any adjustments. A conservative response to free trade is to assist in promoting it. Gradual adjustments should be fostered to increase fair trade. At the same time though, the desire for deeper levels of worldwide integration (military and political) should be thwarted.