
Tariffs Done Wrong
Economic Nationalism, done right, could work very well for the United States in coming decades. The most glorious period for US business, before 1913, was a time of high tariffs and controlled immigration. But, it was also a time when there was no Income Tax; and, in this pre-Federal Reserve era, the money was fixed to gold. The result was very good. The United States, at first a promising 'emerging market,' ended up a global superpower.
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' ... More trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as 'Liberation Day', Trump announced additional tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S. (Photo by)
The present era of Globalism dates from Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, passes landmarks such as the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, but reached its full expression with the inclusion of China into the World Trade Organization in 2001. This was paralleled by a range of technological developments, empowered by the new Internet, which made long-distance supply chains possible. Although this Globalist trend arguably did benefit the world as a whole, it is not clear at all that it benefited American citizens. Many industries were 'hollowed out,' with unemployment, underemployment and depressed wages the first consequence. A weak domestic economy did little to pick up the slack. Supply-chain dependency proved incompatible with a trend toward a more 'multipolar' world, where China or Russia's growing regional authority combined with American exhaustion with its post-WWII role as global policeman.
Within this framework, certain Economic Nationalists (such as Pat Buchanan) have argued in favor of an across-the-board flat rate tariff, avoiding the aggravating complexity of different rates for different products from different countries. It is basically the tariff equivalent of a flat-rate retail sales tax, and might be in the range of 10% to 20%. To this might be added some country-specific (but still flat-rate) tariffs, depending on the situation, perhaps 5%-20%. For some reason, we feel that Free Trade with Canada or Germany is far less problematic than Free Trade with China or Mexico. Why is that? There are many answers to this question, most of them good answers, which goes to show that general economic principles supposedly for all times and all places are not useful here. These things take place in a historical and geographic context.
Tariffs are taxes; and all taxes tend to have negative economic consequences. Part of the United States' brilliant nineteenth-century strategy was also its superlative domestic economic policy, combining Low Taxes with a very business-friendly regulatory framework. The Trump Administration has been talking about eliminating the Capital Gains Tax, which the Supply Side economists of the 1980s long argued was the most economically harmful tax, compared to its modest revenue. Eliminating the tax would be a certain moneymaker – the economic health that followed would result in higher revenues from all other taxes. Unfortunately, this reasonable attempt to balance higher tariffs with lower domestic taxes has been running into trouble, both with the difficulty of continuing the lower tax rates introduced in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and also some hints towards higher income taxes. Higher tariffs and higher domestic taxes combined is not going to result in a healthier economy. It also won't result in more tax revenue.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration, in its tariff policy, has embraced a framework that is basically fallacious and certain to lead to destructive policy that benefits nobody, including Americans. It was expressed in a recent paper by Stephen Miran called 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System.' Miran was later appointed as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. This paper focuses on 'trade imbalances' (basically current account deficits), which are supposedly to be remedied with tariffs and also changes in foreign exchange rates. But, lest we put too much blame on Miran, this line of thinking goes back at least into the 1950s, and historically far earlier, into the Mercantilist era of the eighteenth century. Variants are found in common economic textbooks today.
I would reject this entirely. It is tempting, to some people, to find such a body of widely-embraced pre-existing economic dogma that seems to support a Nationalist agenda that was arrived at largely from real-world experience. But most of its claims are false. The whole idea that 'trade imbalances' need to be resolved with changes in exchange rates is bizarre. The fact of the matter is, the different States of the United States, or the different countries of the Eurozone, also have 'trade imbalances' with each other, even while sharing the same currency! This arises from the basic fact that 'trade imbalances' don't exist. All trade is always balanced.
The primary reason for 'trade imbalances' (US current account deficits) is the low rate of domestic capital creation. The US domestic savings rate is low. Nearly all of this savings, in recent years, has been exhausted in financing Federal deficits, leaving almost nothing for net domestic investment. This has resulted in a reliance on foreign capital even for today's low levels of domestic investment, which shows up statistically as a positive financial account and negative current account, or 'trade imbalance.' The solution is a higher rate of domestic capital creation (getting rid of the capital gains tax would help), combined with smaller Federal deficits. Let's take note here that this solution, perfectly sensible as it is, is also completely contrary to postwar Keynesian doctrine, which says that recessions or underperforming economies are caused by too much saving; and that more spending and larger Federal deficits are the answer. Postwar Keynesian dogma should follow postwar Mercantilist dogma onto the scrap heap of history.
Net Savings (domestic savings minus government deficits) has been very low. The domestic need for ... More capital has been met with foreign capital, producing a "trade imbalance."
During the high-tariff Nineteenth Century, the dollar's value was securely fixed to gold. Although the US also ran a Current Account Deficit throughout the nineteenth century (basically due to European capital flowing to where it was treated best), this was never a problem, and nobody tried to solve this nonexistent problem with currency devaluations. The result was that the US became an economic superpower.
Nevertheless, if the US dollar is 'strong,' but other currencies are weak and decline in value, the resulting swings in foreign exchange rates will introduce serious issues in foreign trade. That's why the economist Robert Mundell argued that free trade and floating exchange rates are inherently incompatible – one justification for the creation of the Eurozone. Probably this would be a good situation to put to use that country-specific flat-rate tariff mentioned earlier, which would provide some cushioning against the effects of foreign exchange swings. But, I would abandon all claims that various countries are 'currency manipulators" – a claim that bizarrely includes even those countries that fix their currencies to the dollar!
Already the more practical members of the Trump Administration have come to the conclusion that the recent tariff strategy does more harm than good, even to Americans. The whole framework of 'fixing trade imbalances' via tariffs and foreign exchange movements (detailed in Stephen Miran's paper) should be abandoned immediately. There is still a place for a policy of Economic Nationalism, that could include substantial tariffs. These are best as flat-rate tariffs. For good results, such as strategy should be combined with good domestic policy, including Low Taxes and Stable Money – or what I've called 'the Magic Formula.' It worked for the United States in the nineteenth century, and it could work again today.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Columbia University activist facing deportation should be freed
Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil rally outside the federal courthouse in Newark on March 28, 2025. (Reena Rose Sibayan for New Jersey Monitor) A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Columbia University activist detained for partaking in pro-Palestinian protests cannot be held by the federal government over allegations that his presence in the United States undermines the nation's foreign policy interests. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued the order Wednesday but gave federal prosecutors until Friday at 9:30 a.m. to ask the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. It's unclear if the activist, Mahmoud Khalil, will be released Friday if the government does indeed appeal. 'This is the news we've been waiting over three months for. Mahmoud must be released immediately and safely returned home to New York to be with me and our newborn baby, Deen,' Noor Abdalla, Khalil's wife, said in a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of New York. 'True justice would mean Mahmoud was never taken away from us in the first place, that no Palestinian father, from New York to Gaza, would have to endure the painful separation of prison walls like Mahmoud has.' If it stands, Farbiarz's ruling, which comes on the heels of a previous decision that said the government's push to deport Khalil was likely unconstitutional, could deal a blow to the Trump administration's efforts to deport dissidents. Khalil was arrested by immigration authorities in March and has been held in Louisiana since. He's fighting two cases to fend off his deportation — one in Louisiana and one in New Jersey, because he was being transferred through Elizabeth Detention Center when his attorneys first filed a petition for his release. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed Khalil supports terrorist group Hamas and called his presence in the country a national security risk. Rubio has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's deportation. Farbiarz noted in his Wednesday ruling that the government could argue that Khalil would have been detained anyway because he inaccurately filled out his lawful permanent resident application, which can be a basis for removal under very rare circumstances. But that argument won't work, he said. 'Lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omission' Khalil is accused of, the judge wrote in the 14-page filing. Khalil, whose wife and newborn son are American citizens, has not been charged with any crime. He was among the first university students who were picked up by immigration authorities targeting pro-Palestine activists. Some students who were detained under similar circumstances have been released but still face deportation. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DOGE efficiency agency says it slashes $25B in federal spending as rehiring begins
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced on Wednesday it has decreased its annual non-defense federal obligations by an additional ~1.9% since last month. As of June 8th, annual non-defense federal obligations are down 22.4%, or ~$25B, as compared to 2024, DOGE announced on X. The cut marks an additional ~1.9% reduction from last month's figures, which were announced on May 8. Doge's Greatest Hits: Look Back At The Department's Most High-profile Cuts During Trump's First 100 Days "Cash outlays will follow as obligations come due," DOGE wrote in the post. "Our initiative to reduce wasteful spend, consistent with the DOGE Cost Efficiency Executive Order, continues to bear fruit." On May 14, DOGE announced the current year's non-defense federal obligations were down 20.5% as compared to 2024. Read On The Fox News App The announcement came minutes before Fox News Digital was first to report the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is rehiring more than 450 previously fired employees belonging to multiple divisions within the agency's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rehired CDC employees came from the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention; the National Center for Environmental Health; the Immediate Office of the Director, and the Global Health Center, according to an HHS official familiar with the matter. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told CBS News in April some personnel who were cut shouldn't have been. Doge Ends 108 'Wasteful' Contracts, Including For An 'Executive Transformational Leadership Training Program' "We're reinstating them, and that was always the plan," Kennedy said. "Part of the—at DOGE, we talked about this from the beginning, is we're going to do 80% cuts, but 20% of those are going to have to be reinstated, because we'll make mistakes." In addition to the HHS rehires, the Internal Revenue Service, Food and Drug Administration, State Department, and Department of Housing and Urban Development started rehiring employees let go during DOGE cuts, the Washington Post reported. Doge Takes A Chainsaw To Federal Spending With 7 Major Victories This Week: 'Got To Be Done' Another roadblock this week was a ruling from U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York, who ruled to restrict the agency's access to federal databases. The Trump administration previously said DOGE could not work effectively with the limitations, noting DOGE needed to access Social Security information to root out fraud. Fox News Digital's Alec Schemmel and Danielle Wallace contributed to this article source: Trump's DOGE efficiency agency says it slashes $25B in federal spending as rehiring begins
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pulse shooting survivors, family members tour building before demolition
Survivors and family members of the victims of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting are touring the inside of the building for a final look before it's torn down. About 250 people accepted the city of Orlando's invitation to tour the building where Omar Mateen, who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others during a Latin Night celebration at the popular LGBTQIA+ club on June 12, 2016. Mateen was killed following an hourslong standoff with police. At the time, it was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas would eclipse the Pulse shooting's death toll the following year. The visits, which coincide with the shooting's nine-year mark, are being done in small groups over the course of four days, with survivors and family members spending about a half hour inside, according to The Associated Press. Christine Leionen lost her only child, 32-year-old Christopher, in the shooting. Wednesday marked the first time she saw where her son was killed. "My son died on that dance floor. He was shot nine times, and he bled to death on that dance floor," she told CBS News. She said going to Pulse was "a way to try to experience his last seconds of life. I just want to feel closer to him." Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, who also visited the site, said the visit "took me back nine years." "Reflecting on being in the command center on Orange Avenue as all the things are transpiring and, eventually, the shooting of the killer and then the realization of just how many people were impacted," he said, according to CBS affiliate WKMG-TV. Dyer said the people visiting included 25 of the 49 victims' families. The city of Orlando is planning to build a permanent memorial where the building currently stands. City officials approved a plan to buy the property for $2 million back in 2023, following several previous failed attempts to buy the land. Family members and some survivors had been pushing for a permanent memorial for years before the purchase. But some of the families and survivors still have questions about whether more could have been done to prevent the shooting or if police could have done more to save people. Questions also surround the ensuing investigation and the issue of whether the attack was a hate crime. "I lived that night, but it's a constant sacrifice to keep moving every day," survivor Maritza Gomez told WKMG back when the city approved the plan to buy the property. "I don't think that Pulse should be diminished. I think that an investigation should be taken care of first." An accused woman skips her pedicure, kills her ex-husband Watch California Gov. Gavin Newsom's full speech on federal response to Los Angeles protests LAPD chief speaks out about deployment of military forces to anti-ICE protests