close
close

Trump’s tariff threats unlikely to force other countries to change their policies

Posted on by L. Dreeye
Trump’s tariff threats unlikely to force other countries to change their policies

10 percent or 20 percent or not? Donald Trump’s campaign appears to be about selectively limiting government; perhaps appointing Elon Musk as “cost-cutting secretary” (more on that here), but also in favor of some unknown level of tariffs that some of his lackeys claim won’t actually happen, but will simply be used to beliefs another countries to reduce their trade restrictions on us.

At various times, Trump has proposed a 10 percent blanket tariff, followed by a 20 percent tariff, with 60 percent levied on Chinese goods. Now, in the last two weeks, he has floated the idea of ​​eliminating the income tax entirely in favor of tariffs or perhaps a value-added tax. “Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,” he said at a Michigan town hall recently.

But this economic illiteracy has somehow found supporters, mostly in the form of Trump surrogates, who argue that the threat of tariffs will be flexible enough that actual tariffs will not actually be imposed.

First, it is a huge risk for voters. Secondly, this is not how things happened in the past.

“The idea that the White House could use import restrictions to influence the policies of foreign governments is not unprecedented,” writes Scott Lincicome in the magazine Atlantic. He believes Trump’s threat in 2019 – that he would tax Mexican imports at a rate of 10 percent – was the result of cooperation in the fight against illegal immigration. However, the idea that the threat of tariffs is extremely successful in getting other countries to change their policies is completely wrong:

In a comprehensive analysis of every U.S. unfair trade investigation from 1975 to 1993 (91 cases focused on foreign discrimination against U.S. goods, services, and intellectual property), Kimberly Ann Elliott and Thomas O. Bayard found that American efforts to pressure foreign countries in order to get them to open up. their markets were successful less than half the time. The authors’ definition of “success” was generous to American officials: it could only include partial achievement of U.S. goals and did not lead to actual trade liberalization. Even then, victories occurred mostly when one country was dependent on the US market (a situation that applies to only a few countries today) and during a brief period in the mid-1980s when the US had much greater economic clout globally. markets than now.

Additionally, adds Linchikom, “No country has lowered its tariffs on American goods in response to tariffs imposed or threatened during the Trump administration, and most of these American tariffs remain in place today.” And the threat that tariffs will be eliminated carries significant costs in itself; How can companies plan for the future when there is so much uncertainty? When can a CEO just on a whim decide to dramatically change the cost of doing business?

“Illegal lottery scheme” Mask: The Philadelphia district attorney is asking a judge to rule Musk’s $1 million voter scheme illegal.

“The American PAC and Musk are lulling the citizens of Philadelphia – and other members of the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election) – to give up their personal information and make a political promise in exchange for a chance to win $1 million,” the report said. civil suit. “It’s a lottery. And this is undoubtedly an illegal lottery.”

Since mid-October, Musk has been trying to use his vast personal wealth to help Trump win swing states; he asked registered voters to sign a petition affirming their support for the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Second Amendments.

Pennsylvania law supposedly only allows lotteries “operated and administered by the state,” so Musk’s creative voting incentives are apparently not appreciated. Under federal law, anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment for either registering to vote or voting” commits a crime. Federal law further clarifies that this includes “anything of monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery tickets, and public benefits such as food stamps.”

Interestingly, Musk technically doesn’t pay anyone to vote or register to vote; he is creating a giveaway available exclusively to registered voters who sign his petition. Whether Pennsylvania courts will rule his conduct illegal remains an open question.

Scenes from Miami: Freedom from nicotine was seen at the Hereticon event, organized by venture capital firm Founders Fund.

MiamiMiami
Nicotine galore (Liz Wolf)

QUICK HITS

  • “While the outcome of the election is still far from clear, mortgage and bond markets are beginning to price in the growing likelihood that Trump will win on November 5 and enact inflationary tariffs and immigration policies,” it said. Bloomberg. “It could even weaken the Federal Reserve, the nation’s inflation-fighting central bank.” (As for the last part, a girl can dream!)
  • Oh no, Sohrab Ahmari wrote about ayahuasca.
  • On CNN’s Abby Phillips, former MSNBC host Mehdi Hassan implied that conservative pundit Ryan Girdusky was a Nazi; While discussing something related to Hamas, Hassan said he was Palestinian, and Girdusky joked, “I hope your pager doesn’t go off.” Girdusky was banned from the network (although Hassan, who implied he was a Nazi, was not), and Phillips issued a lengthy statement of apology, and it was pretty damn cool.
  • Earlier this month Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos blocked the newspaper’s support for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris; therefore, the editors did not support anyone. As a result, a tsunami of subscribers—200,000, or 8 percent of the newspaper’s paid circulation—cancelled its plans.
  • We check the negotiations between Rogan and Harris:
  • Hispanic has always been a stupid term: