Excellent point! Not only do tariffs shoot ourselves on the foot (prudentially stupid) - they also undermine the economic growth of poor countries (morally bad) .
That being said, how about closing the circle of your argument? Given that tariffs are bad prudentially and morally, what should rich countries do when jobs/industries relocate and leave hollowed out towns? Should companies be required to fund re-training? Or offer early retirement for employees over 50, instead of laying them off? Or shall the government actually pay attention - pay attention! That is, systematically monitor for the immiseration of towns /counties/regions and actively promote alternative industries? Thanks for highlighting the moral aspect of tariffs.
You're very welcome! I'm not an expert in economics, but to the extent that I know much of anything about it, my views largely align with the Austrian school of thought (I'd be curious to hear where your own views lie). And they're very much in favor of free trade, so thus I'm suspicious of tariffs.
I don't really know much economics, but my sense is the Austrians are crackpots. I remember hearing a few years ago David Friedman debate the Austrians, and his criticisms seemed right.
I mean, they played a key role in developing the principle of marginal utility, which is a core principle of mainstream economics, and F.A. Hayek won the Nobel prize, so I think the term "crackpot" doesn't quite apply.
They're basically just economics libertarians, as far as I understand. They support free trade, oppose government intervention, and want a stable money supply (generally through something like a gold standard).
Among the more free-marketed orientated economists, the Austrians tend to rely more on theory and the Chicago School tends to rely more on empirical data.
Also, the marginalists revolutionized economics starting in the 1870s. Menger was Austrian, but Walras and Jevons were not. And Alfred Marshall basically compiled everything into a textbook in 1890. Yes, von Mises and especially Hayek were very important economists, but marginal utility was well known by the time they came along.
I really don't think conservatives care that much about being evil at this point--in fact, many of them seem to revel in doing stuff that is bad or stupid.
This is correct, and why Democrats need to reciprocate fully when they're in power next. Deporting conservatives without due process - signing EOs targetting Fox News and law firms that supported them in their defamation lawsuits - threatening to revoke broadcast licenses from Newsmax and targetting individual conservatives via EO. Anything less than this reciprocation is just going to embolden MAGA even further because they think they're invincible and won't get targetted.
But where is it supposed to end? If liberals do that conservatives will just escalate further. At what point does someone (could be either party) decide that ping-ponging back and forth like this doesn't make sense and just try to seize power?
>If liberals do that conservatives will just escalate further.
Biden already tried appeasement. He said we would bring back civility politics and restore normalcy. His admin also waited a year and a half to indict Trump for falsifying electoral votes to overturn the 2020 election. When he was indicted his supporters still said it was political prosecution and election interference. Because his prosecution was slow rolled, he faced no jail sentences for his federal crimes. Now he's President again and deporting people without due process and illegally extorting and targeting Democrats. It's pure retardation to sit back and relax. The person who is going to seize power is the one not following the Constitution and saying he will run a 3rd term. Wake up and fight you blind bastard
Great article, but something to consider is PPP. That is to say, $2 in Vietnam might get you a full meal, but that same $2 in America would get you half a small fry. This is (as I understand it) mostly because labour is cheaper in Vietnam, meaning prices are also cheaper.
That said, as per Engel's law, the proportion of income spent on food is much greater in Vietnam. Furthermore, due to diminishing returns, $1 for a Vietnamese person is more valuable than $1 for an American person. Thus the argument still holds.
<citation needed> on blaming vietnam's curent poverty on the US rather than, e.g., communism.
Evidence for a legacy of communism causing poverty is quite strong. Evidence for a legacy of imperialism causing poverty is extremely weak or wrong-sign.
Yes and no. Not intrinsically evil but like most things can be used in an evil manner.
They have a role in social engineering to dissuade purchases (almost like a sin tax), and provide an easily predictable income stream. They are the first modern tax levied, and have been used worldwide for centuries. Indeed, most countries use them in some form or the other. They often are instituted to protect local industries from overseas competition, and while pure economics would prefer pure competition on comparative advantages, sadly people are emotionally vested in all sorts of poor choices. There is also a case to be made for a certain level of self sufficiency for critical goods as external supply can be fickle, so a minimal support of a local industry can be beneficial overall.
Would love to see actual free trade but due to the usual bad decisions by people in general and governments in particular that will never happen. So some protectionist items have to happen because that’s what others are also doing.
An entire article on the morality of tariffs and not a single mention of the labor abuses and other exploitative methods being used by our trading partners in the East. Laughable. Do more research BB.
Now they can trade more with China who will exert even less power over human rights abuses because their largest competitor just sanctioned themselves on behalf of every country in the world. Are you tired of winning yet?
I quite literally just posted the opposite argument on my substack 😂. FWIW, tariffs would not be my first choice either, however continuing trade as-is with poor countries, in my opinion, enables them to continue treating their workers poorly. It's not as simple as "these people make less than $2 a day, so we should give them more business."
The fashion industry in particular is the second highest polluting industry (after oil) and the factories are often not up to safety codes and home to worker abuse and child labor. The governments of these nations will not intervene and fix these human rights issues unless it affects them personally, which means we need to take our business elsewhere as consumers. Something (we can say whether it should or shouldn't be tariffs) needs to disrupt trade with nations who don't take human rights seriously to push them in the direction of reform.
Yes, though I wish the standard classroom presentation would include the explanation that tariffs originated because rulers did not have an IRS-type system to raise revenue, and so they had to use crude measures like taxing imports. That's why smugglers were executed. They were regarded in effect as cheating the sovereign. Tariffs are a legacy from the past.
Too bad libshart, we're going to bring back manufacturing. And if there's a 90 day tariff pause that excludes the 10% global tariffs then it's the art of the deal. And if we're tariffing China 145% it's because we're isolating them despite tariffing the entire world. And if we pause tariffs on all semiconductors and downstream products from China it's the art of the deal - again. And when we tariff Canada and Mexico despite Trump negotiating the USMCA it's because we were getting ripped off. Learn to use facts and logic rather than your DEI economics
The issue with your argument is that it implies we should not undertake economically sound policies if they harm poorer countries. For example, if the US were to deregulate and make its tax code more efficient - both undoubtably sound policies from an economic perspective - that could plausibly harm poor countries that are taking advantage of suboptimal American policies. Of course, you could argue that a stronger American economy would have spillover effects that outweigh these negatives, but I doubt that’s true in most, if any, cases. I suppose you could also argue that deregulation does not directly intend to harm another country and suck away its business in the same way as tariffs. But in reality a core reason to deregulate is to encourage overseas businesses to move to the US. So I think in many ways the goals of deregulation and tariffs have much in common, and therefore these policies are both immoral, perhaps not to equal degrees. Curious to hear your thoughts. Perhaps I misinterpreted your argument.
Excellent point! Not only do tariffs shoot ourselves on the foot (prudentially stupid) - they also undermine the economic growth of poor countries (morally bad) .
That being said, how about closing the circle of your argument? Given that tariffs are bad prudentially and morally, what should rich countries do when jobs/industries relocate and leave hollowed out towns? Should companies be required to fund re-training? Or offer early retirement for employees over 50, instead of laying them off? Or shall the government actually pay attention - pay attention! That is, systematically monitor for the immiseration of towns /counties/regions and actively promote alternative industries? Thanks for highlighting the moral aspect of tariffs.
Euthymic Chickens:
https://jnicanorozores.substack.com
Interesting points!
Thanks!
You're very welcome! I'm not an expert in economics, but to the extent that I know much of anything about it, my views largely align with the Austrian school of thought (I'd be curious to hear where your own views lie). And they're very much in favor of free trade, so thus I'm suspicious of tariffs.
I don't really know much economics, but my sense is the Austrians are crackpots. I remember hearing a few years ago David Friedman debate the Austrians, and his criticisms seemed right.
I mean, they played a key role in developing the principle of marginal utility, which is a core principle of mainstream economics, and F.A. Hayek won the Nobel prize, so I think the term "crackpot" doesn't quite apply.
They're basically just economics libertarians, as far as I understand. They support free trade, oppose government intervention, and want a stable money supply (generally through something like a gold standard).
Among the more free-marketed orientated economists, the Austrians tend to rely more on theory and the Chicago School tends to rely more on empirical data.
Also, the marginalists revolutionized economics starting in the 1870s. Menger was Austrian, but Walras and Jevons were not. And Alfred Marshall basically compiled everything into a textbook in 1890. Yes, von Mises and especially Hayek were very important economists, but marginal utility was well known by the time they came along.
You could also enjoy this one: https://mises.org/podcasts/bob-murphy-show/bryan-caplan-defends-open-borders-and-his-critique-austrian-economics
I don't know economics, but Bryan Caplan wrote some interesting critics here. https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
I really don't think conservatives care that much about being evil at this point--in fact, many of them seem to revel in doing stuff that is bad or stupid.
This is correct, and why Democrats need to reciprocate fully when they're in power next. Deporting conservatives without due process - signing EOs targetting Fox News and law firms that supported them in their defamation lawsuits - threatening to revoke broadcast licenses from Newsmax and targetting individual conservatives via EO. Anything less than this reciprocation is just going to embolden MAGA even further because they think they're invincible and won't get targetted.
But where is it supposed to end? If liberals do that conservatives will just escalate further. At what point does someone (could be either party) decide that ping-ponging back and forth like this doesn't make sense and just try to seize power?
>If liberals do that conservatives will just escalate further.
Biden already tried appeasement. He said we would bring back civility politics and restore normalcy. His admin also waited a year and a half to indict Trump for falsifying electoral votes to overturn the 2020 election. When he was indicted his supporters still said it was political prosecution and election interference. Because his prosecution was slow rolled, he faced no jail sentences for his federal crimes. Now he's President again and deporting people without due process and illegally extorting and targeting Democrats. It's pure retardation to sit back and relax. The person who is going to seize power is the one not following the Constitution and saying he will run a 3rd term. Wake up and fight you blind bastard
Great article, but something to consider is PPP. That is to say, $2 in Vietnam might get you a full meal, but that same $2 in America would get you half a small fry. This is (as I understand it) mostly because labour is cheaper in Vietnam, meaning prices are also cheaper.
That said, as per Engel's law, the proportion of income spent on food is much greater in Vietnam. Furthermore, due to diminishing returns, $1 for a Vietnamese person is more valuable than $1 for an American person. Thus the argument still holds.
Yes, Burundi's GDP per capita at purchasing power parity is a little over $900
<citation needed> on blaming vietnam's curent poverty on the US rather than, e.g., communism.
Evidence for a legacy of communism causing poverty is quite strong. Evidence for a legacy of imperialism causing poverty is extremely weak or wrong-sign.
Vietnam was a colony of France anyway. America's involvement was just the war. But Korea was also at wat and the South dedicated quite rapidly.
Yes and no. Not intrinsically evil but like most things can be used in an evil manner.
They have a role in social engineering to dissuade purchases (almost like a sin tax), and provide an easily predictable income stream. They are the first modern tax levied, and have been used worldwide for centuries. Indeed, most countries use them in some form or the other. They often are instituted to protect local industries from overseas competition, and while pure economics would prefer pure competition on comparative advantages, sadly people are emotionally vested in all sorts of poor choices. There is also a case to be made for a certain level of self sufficiency for critical goods as external supply can be fickle, so a minimal support of a local industry can be beneficial overall.
Would love to see actual free trade but due to the usual bad decisions by people in general and governments in particular that will never happen. So some protectionist items have to happen because that’s what others are also doing.
An entire article on the morality of tariffs and not a single mention of the labor abuses and other exploitative methods being used by our trading partners in the East. Laughable. Do more research BB.
Now they can trade more with China who will exert even less power over human rights abuses because their largest competitor just sanctioned themselves on behalf of every country in the world. Are you tired of winning yet?
I quite literally just posted the opposite argument on my substack 😂. FWIW, tariffs would not be my first choice either, however continuing trade as-is with poor countries, in my opinion, enables them to continue treating their workers poorly. It's not as simple as "these people make less than $2 a day, so we should give them more business."
The fashion industry in particular is the second highest polluting industry (after oil) and the factories are often not up to safety codes and home to worker abuse and child labor. The governments of these nations will not intervene and fix these human rights issues unless it affects them personally, which means we need to take our business elsewhere as consumers. Something (we can say whether it should or shouldn't be tariffs) needs to disrupt trade with nations who don't take human rights seriously to push them in the direction of reform.
Yes, though I wish the standard classroom presentation would include the explanation that tariffs originated because rulers did not have an IRS-type system to raise revenue, and so they had to use crude measures like taxing imports. That's why smugglers were executed. They were regarded in effect as cheating the sovereign. Tariffs are a legacy from the past.
This is a general argument against the state, it's not specific to tariffs.
Too bad libshart, we're going to bring back manufacturing. And if there's a 90 day tariff pause that excludes the 10% global tariffs then it's the art of the deal. And if we're tariffing China 145% it's because we're isolating them despite tariffing the entire world. And if we pause tariffs on all semiconductors and downstream products from China it's the art of the deal - again. And when we tariff Canada and Mexico despite Trump negotiating the USMCA it's because we were getting ripped off. Learn to use facts and logic rather than your DEI economics
The issue with your argument is that it implies we should not undertake economically sound policies if they harm poorer countries. For example, if the US were to deregulate and make its tax code more efficient - both undoubtably sound policies from an economic perspective - that could plausibly harm poor countries that are taking advantage of suboptimal American policies. Of course, you could argue that a stronger American economy would have spillover effects that outweigh these negatives, but I doubt that’s true in most, if any, cases. I suppose you could also argue that deregulation does not directly intend to harm another country and suck away its business in the same way as tariffs. But in reality a core reason to deregulate is to encourage overseas businesses to move to the US. So I think in many ways the goals of deregulation and tariffs have much in common, and therefore these policies are both immoral, perhaps not to equal degrees. Curious to hear your thoughts. Perhaps I misinterpreted your argument.
Tariffs are good when necessary but it needs to be done intentionally
Please write about economics more often.
Wow! One of the worst things we do as a country? I'd love to get that one unpacked.
Faggot