Free Traders Case For Tariffs

[Say it aint so]

The "Tarrif's charged to the USA" data are apparently based on the respective country's trade deficit...a calculation no economist would ever include .

"the country’s trade deficit divided by its exports to the United States times 1/2."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/03/economy/reciprocal-tariff-math/index.html

That's why the claim it's about fentanyl coming into the US is bunkum.
It has always been about trade deficits, where Trump doesn't understand the country that consumes more than the four follow on countries behind them combined, is going to see trade deficits.

 

[Hans Blaster]

well free trade might work just fine, but we haven't had that. Which is what he is saying.

go look at the statistics involving the hollowing-out of our manufacturing sector since the 1950s

The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world with about 15% of total GLOBAL manufacturing.

Forty years of falling manufacturing employment

Despite being a leading driver of employment growth for decades, manufacturing has shed employment over the past 40 years as the U.S. economy has shifted to service-providing industries. This article looks at the broad employment trends in manufacturing over the past 40 years, as well as the...

www.bls.gov

Modern manufacturing is highly efficient and does not take as many employees as in the past.

and also see how we couldn't get critical medicines and equipment during the covid fiasco in 2020-21

Manufacturing is highly specialized and retooling plants is not something that happens overnight. This is not related to what country it takes place in. Part of the success of "Operation Warp Speed" was the time spent preparing to produce and then starting to produce the vaccine before it was fully tested greatly shortening the time it took for vaccines to be made available broadly. They went from identifying the critical protein genetic sequence to mass distribution in just under one year.

that is a failure

Nothing you posted indicates how *free trade* is a failure.

 

[Merrill]

The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world with about 15% of total GLOBAL manufacturing.

Modern manufacturing is highly efficient and does not take as many employees as in the past.

Manufacturing is highly specialized and retooling plants is not something that happens overnight. This is not related to what country it takes place in. Part of the success of "Operation Warp Speed" was the time spent preparing to produce and then starting to produce the vaccine before it was fully tested greatly shortening the time it took for vaccines to be made available broadly. They went from identifying the critical protein genetic sequence to mass distribution in just under one year.

Nothing you posted indicates how *free trade* is a failure.

We are running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit

pretty sure that is a "failure" on our side

all the gaslighting about more efficient manufacturing, less people needed, whatever, is irrelevant. These are the numbers

 

[Belk]

We are running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit

pretty sure that is a "failure" on our side

all the gaslighting about more efficient manufacturing, less people needed, whatever, is irrelevant. These are the numbers

Please explain how buying more stuff from everyone else is a "failure" because I don't see how that is a problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We are running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit

pretty sure that is a "failure" on our side

We buy lots of cheap garbage from other countries. So what.

all the gaslighting about more efficient manufacturing, less people needed, whatever, is irrelevant. These are the numbers

Those are facts, not gaslighting.

 

[Merrill]

If you define "bad actors" as "anyone who runs a trade surplus with the US," then this is correct. However, I disagree with that definition.

Vietnam does not tariff our goods at 90%. Their tariff rate on most US products is 15% or less, and all of their tariffs remain within WTO limits.

Vietnam - Import Tariffs

Includes information on average tariff rates and types that U.S. firms should be aware of when exporting to the market.

www.trade.gov

Rather, the ratio of their trade surplus with the US to the total value of US imports from Vietnam is about 90% (i.e. we buy a lot more stuff from them than they buy from us). Trump took that number and divided by 2 to get his so-called "reciprocal tariff" rate of 46%.

Vietnam

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

ustr.gov

so the link you provided doesn't say what you indicate it says:

" However, in recent years, Vietnam has increased applied tariff rates on several products"

meaning many products from the US are taxed well above 15% --no hard data is in that link to indicate which ones are subject to this, but I'm sure it can be looked up

the link also doesn't account for Vietnam's VAT and other fees

but my purpose was to simply explain the rationale of the new tariffs. I never said a bad actor was "anyone who runs a trade surplus with the US", nor did the administration. So stop putting words in my mouth

 

[Merrill]

We buy lots of cheap garbage from other countries. So what.

Those are facts, not gaslighting.

it's gaslighting because

1. The Chinese manufacturing workforce has grown over the past few decades, not shrunk. If manufacturing was so efficient now, as you claim, that we need a fraction of the workers, than this wouldn't be the case

to which you will say "well they are building more things"!

and I will say "yeah, it is called having a manufacturing sector--like we used to have"

2. Having a national manufacturing program for critical resources is very important, unless you want us to operate like a banana-republic and import everything we need in order to have a functioning society

 

[Merrill]

Please explain how buying more stuff from everyone else is a "failure" because I don't see how that is a problem.

A modest trade deficit isn't a problem

a massively growing one is

having towns completely hollowed-out because all the manufacturing closed or moved overseas is a problem

having everyone work in the service economy is not a good thing, for a lot of reasons

 

[Hans Blaster]

it's gaslighting because

1. The Chinese manufacturing workforce has grown over the past few decades, not shrunk. If manufacturing was so efficient now, as you claim, that we need a fraction of the workers, than this wouldn't be the case

to which you will say "well they are building more things"!

Please don't put words in my mouth.

and I will say "yeah, it is called having a manufacturing sector--like we used to have"

The value of US manufactured products has gone *UP*, not down. The primary "deindustrialization" of the US was in the 70s and 80s. That was a long time ago.

2. Having a national manufacturing program for critical resources is very important, unless you want us to operate like a banana-republic and import everything we need in order to have a functioning society

The US government is not yet controlled by the fruit growers, but the CEOs do seem to be in charge.

 

[Say it aint so]

We are running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit

pretty sure that is a "failure" on our side

all the gaslighting about more efficient manufacturing, less people needed, whatever, is irrelevant. These are the numbers

The US heads over heels is the largest consuming nation.

The US has the third highest wages in the world. The US has the third largest population in the world. The reality of a sure fire trade deficit is not a failure. It's a product really driven by supply, demand, and the reality of; if American manufacturers can make or buy it cheaper overseas, they will. Americans want cheaper products. Investors want higher returns.

 

[Merrill]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

The value of US manufactured products has gone *UP*, not down. The primary "deindustrialization" of the US was in the 70s and 80s. That was a long time ago.

The US government is not yet controlled by the fruit growers, but the CEOs do seem to be in charge.

this debate has been going on for decades: free trade vs. protectionism, etc.

but I would like to know what the political left thinks happens to companies with unionized, high-cost workforces when trade barriers are dropped?

hint: people get laid off and factories move.

so we can either reform labor laws (highly recommended), deregulate, and subsidize domestic manufacturing, and implement tariffs

or we can simply watch our manufacturing sector get hollowed out further. I used to live in that blue state of MA (Worcester) where the cash registers at the grocery stores had no cash in them, because they were filled with food stamps. The town was a wasteland of lost jobs and empty buildings.

 

[Merrill]

The US heads over heels is the largest consuming nation.

View attachment 363057

The US has the third highest wages in the world. The US has the third largest population in the world. The reality of a sure fire trade deficit is not a failure. It's a product really driven by supply, demand, and the reality of; if American manufacturers can make or buy it cheaper overseas, they will. Americans want cheaper products. Investors want higher returns.

totally irrelevant

was are the world's largest import consumer *because* we have low, or no, tariffs, on imported goods. We also have a large population and a high quality of life

and because we have virtually no tariffs (up till now), manufacturing has moved overseas, leading to massive job losses in the US

this is a question of degree, and is not a black-and-white issue: some things should be built overseas and some things should be imported

but we should not be running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit while other countries place punitive tariffs on our exports

 

[Belk]

A modest trade deficit isn't a problem

a massively growing one is

having towns completely hollowed-out because all the manufacturing closed or moved overseas is a problem

having everyone work in the service economy is not a good thing, for a lot of reasons

The trade deficit is a result, not a cause. Also, the US is the second largest manufacturer in the world. The issue is the type of manufacturing changed and we did not invest in retraining or helping those affected.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

so the link you provided doesn't say what you indicate it says:

" However, in recent years, Vietnam has increased applied tariff rates on several products"

meaning many products from the US are taxed well above 15% --no hard data is in that link to indicate which ones are subject to this, but I'm sure it can be looked up

Vietnam section in US President's tariff announcement

The Investor introduces the content of the Vietnam section (pages 370-377) in the 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program.

theinvestor.vn

There is no indication that the average tariff rate imposed by Vietnam on US products is anywhere near 90%

the link also doesn't account for Vietnam's VAT and other fees

VAT is applied evenly to both domestic and imported products, and is thus irrelevant to discussions of fair trade.

but my purpose was to simply explain the rationale of the new tariffs. I never said a bad actor was "anyone who runs a trade surplus with the US", nor did the administration. So stop putting words in my mouth

I never said that you made that claim. Rather, I pointed out that that was the metric by which tariffs were calculated. Thus, if you wish to claim that the tariffs are only applied to "bad actors," that is what is necessarily meant by the term "bad actor".

 

[Hans Blaster]

this debate has been going on for decades: free trade vs. protectionism, etc.

We know. The President has chosen an 1890s position that is out of whack with modern understandings of economics.

but I would like to know what the political left thinks happens to companies with unionized, high-cost workforces when trade barriers are dropped?

You could ask them, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the facts of international trade economics.

hint: people get laid off and factories move.

so we can either reform labor laws (highly recommended), deregulate, and subsidize domestic manufacturing, and implement tariffs

we spend the whole "free trade era" deregulating manufacturing and destroying the unions. How did that work out?

or we can simply watch our manufacturing sector get hollowed out further. I used to live in that blue state of MA (Worcester) where the cash registers at the grocery stores had no cash in them, because they were filled with food stamps. The town was a wasteland of lost jobs and empty buildings.

 

[SimplyMe]

totally irrelevant

was are the world's largest import consumer *because* we have low, or no, tariffs, on imported goods. We also have a large population and a high quality of life

and because we have virtually no tariffs (up till now), manufacturing has moved overseas, leading to massive job losses in the US

this is a question of degree, and is not a black-and-white issue: some things should be built overseas and some things should be imported

but we should not be running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit while other countries place punitive tariffs on our exports

Yet, this argument would be for targeted tariffs. You create tariffs that would provide the help these manufacturers need to compete equally in the US market; particularly in areas where foreign governments may be subsidizing their manufacturing.

What you don't do is blanket tariffs, particularly since that tends to hurt things like agriculture where we benefit from trade. It's notable that Trump is already talking about a new subsidy for farmers who (as was predicted) will be hurt by tariffs. While also, at the same time, we expect prices to increase at grocery stores.

You also have to wonder about the "cost" of these tariffs when you start to see our allies in Asia, Japan and South Korea, join forces with our adversary, China, because they are wanting to retaliate against our tariffs. Geopolitically, these tariffs seem as if they may have a very high cost, as we alienate our allies and drive them to build relationships and trade with our adversaries.

 

[Say it aint so]

totally irrelevant

was are the world's largest import consumer *because* we have low, or no, tariffs, on imported goods. We also have a large population and a high quality of life

and because we have virtually no tariffs (up till now), manufacturing has moved overseas, leading to massive job losses in the US

this is a question of degree, and is not a black-and-white issue: some things should be built overseas and some things should be imported

but we should not be running a 1.3 trillion dollar trade deficit while other countries place punitive tariffs on our exports

No, because of cheaper overseas labor manufacturers have moved. That's what led to massive job loses. Tariffs, no matter how much, will be borne by the consumer. Those overseas products either manufactured or bought will increase in price. So will the American products right along with them. This isn't the first time this rodeo came to town. The last time we had to bail out farmers. The time before that it helped usher in the depression. The results won't change, it just depends on to what degree.

 

[expos4ever]

The stock market will correct itself.

Even if that's true, it's like arguing that it's okay to pick someone in the testicles, because the testicles will eventually recover.

 

[Merrill]

We know. The President has chosen an 1890s position that is out of whack with modern understandings of economics.

You could ask them, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the facts of international trade economics.

we spend the whole "free trade era" deregulating manufacturing and destroying the unions. How did that work out?

so how is it OK for foreign governments to impose high tariffs and duties on our products?

you are arguing from a free-trade standpoint when free-trade doesn't even exist

how is it OK for the EU to impose a 10%+ (VAT and duties as well) tariff on our cars, while we impose a 2.5% tariff on theirs?

I am all for free-trade. I am not for the US getting shafted while elites here say "oh well, who cares about fly-over country as long as I can buy a BMW and iPhone at a reasonable price"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

so how is it OK for foreign governments to impose high tariffs and duties on our products?

The thing is that they (mostly) don't. Tariff rates above ~10-15% are generally highly targeted at specific domestic industries that a country wishes to protect.