Tariffs have been talked about lately on what remains of America’s legacy media and for good reason: the implementation of tariffs will greatly impact our economy. The truth is that while we can dive into the numbers behind these new tariffs, I’d rather hammer out points than give you numbers that will be of no consequence or relevance in the decades to come. Tariffs as they exist today are simply innovative ways for the government to justify, through the use of oversimplified economic theory, creating what amounts to country-specific VAT taxes. While it may cost more to produce things here, and it may be cheaper to import goods from abroad, creating additional taxes on imported goods without reinvesting that money into domestic industries really only makes the consumer poorer. Just because the tariffs allow Americans to become – on paper – economically competitive in different industries doesn’t mean they will, simply because the modern industrial economy does not consist of basket weavers and it takes a great deal of funding to create the means of production these days. Domestic industries are not going to redevelop and regrow overnight, simply because the temporary politics of today give them a slight competitive advantage – if they manage to scrape enough resources and talent together to match their foreign competitors’ sophisticated facilities and tried-and-true production techniques.
Putting it simply, we cannot apply basic economic theories to the complex world around us and expect anything good. Just as a child playing Hasbro’s game Operation does not become a surgeon, Trump rattling inanely on about tariffs does not make him an economist. If we wanted to be serious about economic growth, we’d tariff things mostly industry-by-industry, and reallocate those tariffs’ moneys in the form of loans to domestic businesses in those same industries. Depending on what production targets those domestic businesses in our different industries met, we could create a graduated loan forgiveness program, with the intent of giving our industries funding to develop and the economic incentives to become more productive. Similarly, we could create an international office for industrial inspectors, and leave it up to our domestic industries to report on each other and their competitors abroad, with the foreign competition enduring the burden of more tariffs on a country-by-country basis based on their handling of their own environments and employees. If someone wanted to be truly economically competitive with us, they’d have to engage in production ethically and safely. This is because, at the end of the day, countries shouldn’t be locked in a race to the bottom to reduce their own working class’ wages, enable their companies to violate safety laws, and not manage their industries’ pollutants effectively. These are all negative externalities of the global economy right now and it is the reason why international trade isn’t truly all it is hyped up to be, if everyone is allowed and encouraged to be terrible neighbors.
At the end of the day, while free trade may be beneficial on the surface, I’m not sure why we have to live in a world where our industries are forced to compete against foreign competitors with suicide nets, child laborers, and monumental waste mismanagement. If we want a better world for ourselves, the first step we must take is in ending this race to the bottom. While some countries may protest about their industries being environmentally and ethically audited, I’d just consider that an indication of guilt, ban their goods, and move on. If people don’t want to play the game, then they can simply leave, so the fact that every other country is still grumbling at the table gives us an idea of the buying power that America presently commands. We have the power as a country to demand higher standards for everyone, not just ourselves, because otherwise, we’re just “burdening” ourselves in the economic sense with policies critical to building a better society.
If someone were to argue with us on a basis of economic principles here, it should be said that DMSG believes trade exists solely to benefit both parties. We didn’t trade in the past for the sake of reducing our own capacity to provide for ourselves, while accumulating debt in the process. Instead, we traded for the sake of mutual benefit. If our trading partners cannot or refuse to provide us with any benefit, then trade with them becomes not only pointless but a detriment to our own abilities as a country. If we’ve become too dependent on international trade to demand that we benefit from it, then it is time to begin gradually withdrawing from it, until we are independent enough to make the demands we desire. If our country simply cannot benefit its own people or industries through international trade, then it becomes pointless in continuing it and should be stopped at once. There is no point in playing a rigged game.
