The things that dominate middle class budgets: food, housing, medicine, education, are surprisingly local, and have become increasingly unaffordable in recent decades even as economic numbers have gone up.

The question that really matters to most people is, "What will these tariffs do to the prices of these things that actually matter?" And that it actually rather hard to predict.

The economists who claim that tariffs will harm normal Americans were also the economists who claimed that sanctions would destroy the Russian economy. They had the opposite effect, for reasons that still remain somewhat unclear. It may be that global trade makes certain classes of society very very wealthy, while not necessarily being such a positive for the middle class.

It is also notable that Chinese competitiveness has only increased as they have engaged in decades of state economic planning and market barriers. The economists who have told us since Reagan that this is inefficient and stupid might be ... wrong.

During a world war, you cannot trade with your international “enemies.”

This level of tariffs is to discourage international dependency and trade as a prelude to war. Look who does not have a tariff.

This is not good policy - leading economists have written about this [1] as “…perhaps the worst economic own goal I have seen in my lifetime.”

[1] https://www.thefp.com/p/tyler-cowen-liberation-day-was-even

This is a great question. For me, the steelman argument is the following: Without trade barriers, the local production economy is disadvantaged. Local companies have to comply with things like environmental and labor law regulations, making it more expensive to produce things. Other countries may not have these regulations. Therefore, by institution these rules without tariffs, the net effect is a reduction of environmental and social standards, as manufacturers move to locations where they do not exist.

A strong version of the policy would thus involve directly tying tariffs to environmental and labor laws of the producing country, thus equalizing the field with the local companies. Not only would this allow for fair international competition, it would also economically incentivise the global development of good standards.

There's no coherence here, the people coming up with this policy are either ignorant or incompetent to the point of malice (Navarro, AKA "Ron Vara," being the benchmark). Tariffs, when used judiciously, can help support "infant industries" where domestic investment in emerging technologies means that supply constraints are less of a concern and where there are long-run expectations of lower domestic prices through efficiencies. In some cases, targeted punitive sanctions (against dumping policies, or to enforce labor and environmental standards) make sense, but the economic evidence on efficacy is mixed.

There is somewhat of an argument that countries such as China overuse American consumption as a crutch for development, rather than stimulating domestic consumption (Xi has, to give very mild credit, proposed policies to increase domestic demand); tariffs would certainly force countries and trade blocs to focus on non-American consumption, though this is a bit like losing weight by removing the patient's esophagus.

What we're seeing here is just ridiculous, from an economic perspective. Low-cost low-margin manufacturing is not coming back to the US, absent an economic crisis that pushes down to a upper-middle-income-level state (stay tuned!), while putting tariffs on agricultural products simply ensures that consumers will pay more without a corresponding increase in domestic competition (how many pineapples does the US grow?). The "calculation" of the tariffs, such as it is, is simply a tax on comparative advantage, which is mercantilist nonsense we left behind centuries ago. There's no steelman for this; even if there were, the increase in raw material costs would make the steelman unaffordable for us both.

I don't know if this will answer your question, but the last episode of the Planet Money podcast addressed tariffs:

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/02/1242229719/planet-money-the-c...

IMO, tariffs are bad for the economy, but could be great for workers and the middle class. Regardless, implementing them this was is absolutely nuts.

China got our manufacturing because they didn't care about pollution. Now, they've developed cleaner industrial methods and built out fantastic infrastructure (e.g. massive industrial complexes right next to shipping ports). Meanwhile, we did nothing and we're a good ten to twenty years behind assuming perfect infrastructure development starting today with tariffs that are immediately in effect.

Combine that with the fact that infrastructure development in the US costs many multiples more than other developed nations, and you have a recipe for complete failure.

I can’t speak with authority, but I imagine the steelman involves something like

- US needs manufacturing capability to maintain defense capability and boost long term growth.

- tariffs result in pushing some manufacturing (and associated skill set) back to the U.S.

In what crazy worldview would these be seen as good for America? Here's one.

Hypothetically, if you perceived that the root cause of some foreign policy problems you felt were important to solve was the gap in civil liberties between your country and powerful overseas countries, you could conclude that peace could be achieved by handicapping your own country so that it regresses to match the lower standards of the foreign nations that appear to have a problem with your country and its ideologies.

.

No guarantees that this is the actual belief of the people in power, it would just satisfy your requirement.

If the best possible version of this policy were smart, it would be coupled with boosting science and education, and improving conditions for the working class, including health care. It would also include governing in good faith.

Argument for tariffs: Make foreign made goods expensive to encourage local production. And it has worked. Usually tariffs are more focused though. For example, the US has had tariffs on trucks for a long time; as a result, most foreign automakers have US plants to build trucks/SUVs.

The main problem with the tariffs is this: the US has benefited mightily from globalism. What actually happened is that the US, being at the cutting edge of technology, outsourced mostly low paying jobs, while developing more innovative/productive industries and sold goods all across the world.

Apple's a prime example. All the difficult (read physical) and low-paying aspects of production are outsourced to Taiwan and China, meanwhile Apple employs tens of thousands of high paid engineers in the US. Ditto for all the big tech companies.

Now, globalism has negatively affected a certain segment of the population and it was definitely a mistake to ignore that (rust belt great example). But bringing manufacturing back won't fix that now that the cat's out of the bag. Engaging in a trade war will destroy a ton of high paying jobs (every multinational is going to take a sizeable revenue cut) just to bring back a small amount of low paying jobs, if any are brought back... Firms will likely build highly automated US factories.

The best possible version of this policy would be focused tariffs on specific goods you want manufactured in the US... Semiconductors, autos, steel, boats, that sort of thing.

Many countries have blanket global tariffs to make their own industries more competitive

We ignored them

Now we are doing it and yes it upsets the world order

There is no precedent where this has been beneficial for the US, but we can try again. The last time it was tried was 1930, and our fortunes vastly changed since then

The incentive is for entrepreneurially minded people to try to provide services in the US and fix the supply chain here. This theoretically means more people employed and more people able to afford the prices of things produced here. Keeps velocity of money in the economy high.

We will learn how resilient a coalition of other countries are, as they try to only trade with each other

A smarter version of this policy would be country by country and industry by industry negotiations. But, given that some countries are dropping their own blanket tariffs, and others like Vietnam already coming to the negotiating table, time will tell.

I think it's about reducing the impact of outside market forces on the US, and increasing its sovereignty in the long term, and potentially laying the groundwork for a white ethnostate that doesn't rely on immigration. The globalised world is going to be crippled by climate change, mass climate immigration, demographic instability and food security.

This avoids the demographic and, depending on your perspective cultural challenges that are coming for many countries in the future, and lets America march to its own beat. America is setting up to be a fortress and a world unto itself in an unstable world. While a lot of countries will be going through these issues in the future America is doing its hard yards now.

Still years of economic misfortune ahead in the meantime.

The best possible rationalization with extremely favorable glasses is that Trump is forcing a return to US manufacturing. The best version of this would incorporate things like a scheduled increase over time to give companies time to migrate, amounts based off of things like differences in living conditions, along with minor things like congressional approval so it's actually legal at all.

However the vastly more likely reason is he's a complete fucking moron that treats all interactions as binary "winning" or "losing". A mindset that helped him bankrupt numberous companies, and now likely a country. So trade deficits are "losing" and he's retaliating with tariffs. This logic befitting a toddler completely fits everything he's demonstrated over the years.

Well, one theory is that Trump wants individual companies to come to him and beg for exemptions to the tariffs. This would consolidate his power: Nobody would dare to do anything that would oppose him, for fear of having their "tariff exemption" revoked.

Another theory is that Trump has some complicated plan to reduce the US's debt; again, it involves using tariffs as a "stick" to push our allies into doing what we want. Summarized here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090CqPrw_AE

I didn’t see any other responses mention this, but a Reddit tinfoil hat argument that’s going around, which sounds more plausible than the other theories like wealth consolidation and systemic destruction of middle class, is the national debt that needs to be rolled over in the near future. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to roll over the debt and intentionally tanking the economy to increase unemployment and force the fed to lower the interest rates could make it cheaper for the government to roll over the debt in a manageable fashion.

The steel man argument is:

  1. Bring jobs back on-shore. Lots of US companies shut down factories over the last several decades and shipped jobs to Mexico and other countries. The UAW supports the tariffs.

  2. Bring manufacturing back on-shore. If we have to fight a war, we need a strong manufacturing base (see #1). If it's a war with China, or with a country where China decides not to sell to us, we wouldn't have the manufacturing base to supply the war effort.

  3. These are mostly reciprocal tariffs. The countries that were are putting tariffs on already have tariffs on our goods.

  4. Additional treasury income.

  5. Combat unfair practices like dumping.

There are steelman arguments for tariffs, as can be seen by their regular use by every country in the world.

There are no steelman arguments for THESE tariffs, which are based on the premise of blindly assuming that all trade deficits across the board are bad, even for things the US is physically incapable of producing like various rare earths or diamonds, and then even more blindly setting tariffs based on the raw numbers of those trade deficits.

AI centric argument:

The policy indicates trade, traditional partnerships, and traditional financial metrics are less important for the administration. It is largely symbolic rather than analytically worked out - the direction is more important than the details.

This is consistent with the economy being radically altered by robotics and AI. Comparative advantage in labor costs is becoming irrelevant, so a large part of the justification for trade disappears.

Wealth is being further concentrated into those with existing assets, as the negotiating position of labor becomes weaker. It is less important to maintain partnerships when you can do everything yourself.

Recession becomes less important than pushing hard for leadership in AI. Deepseek’s model release had a huge impact on the values of leading US firms. With AI traditional measures of the economy become significantly less relevant.

I think deindustrialization is detrimental to the US. We couldn't even make masks fast enough during the covid. The YouTube video that compares the factory of GM and that of BYD's is just embarrassing. It really shows how far we've fallen. The cost of building anything, including canon shells, is through the roof because we simply don't have the supply chains. And do we really believe that we can keep innovating if we don't actually make things? It's really a pipe dream that our engineers can keep drawing boxes in their cushy offices and believe that Chinese companies won't catch up. On the other hand, it's so sad that successful people like Balaj believe that the US can never reverse the course of deindustrialization. Their reasons are the usual: the US workers are too incompetent compared to the Chinese workers. Our automation is too behind compared to China's. We have lost the know-how of building our supply chain. We may get back manufacturing, but we will lose our seigniorage of a global currency - the US dollar.

What I don't understand is that China was dirt poor 30 years ago and was not a manufacturing powerhouse even 15 years ago. It was the Taiwanese, the Japanese, and the westerners who invested heavily in China and brought them technologies and expertise and bootstrapped the massive manufacturing industries in China. The quality and professionalism of US workers used to be the envy of Chinese people. Since when rebuilding the manufacturing business has become mission impossible? Can we really keep printing money when we make so little stuff? I get that we have great service jobs, but who wants our services if we don't make anything worth servicing? Back in 1917, Allyn Young believed that London would always be the finance center of the world, but we all know what happened later.

I'm not sure if Tarrif will work in the end, but at least it can attract additional investment given that the US is the largest consumer market in the world. Combined that with deregulation (assuming it will be be successful) , at least the US has a shot to bring back the key manufacturing business. And don't we believe actions lead to information? What have we done in the past 15 years to stop our deindustrialization? At least this time our government is trying. For that, I'd like to give them benefit of doubt.

I can't steelman the case for high tariffs, but small tariffs make sense to me.

There's a trade off between economic diversity and comparative advantage, and a balance is better than being at either extreme.

A 5% cost advantage might be sufficient for a company to offshore production of medical supplies, but is that minor cost saving worthwhile versus the risk of a shortage in war or pandemic?

Automation is reducing labor cost advantages, and converging unit manufacturing costs globally, so more and more industries are falling into this "slight comparative advantage to offshoring" case.

It should be obvious that this market correction is the desired outcome for this administration and its defenders.

If there weren't so many people whose livelihood or investment portfolios benefited from free trade or government spending the economic indicators wouldn't react as badly. Punishing or disincentivizing economic activity they don't like is more important than increasing GDP or asset values.

It may seem like a weak argument because of the circular logic but that shouldn't surprise any of us.

The problem with every third-party rationalisation is that they’re all just wild guesses.

The administration hasn’t explained their logic and haven’t made clear plans — that’s the real problem.

The difference between science and “traditional” beliefs is that the former is not just about convincing others through force, but explaining things to others such that they’ll convince themselves.

It’s also the difference between good political leadership and a ruthless dictator.

One needs only words, the other needs violence.

Whether he is right or wrong, when Lighthizer was on 60 Minutes, he said they have tried everything to level the playing field, and nothing worked. So this time, there is nothing to lose.

It is a very good interview and discussion.

https://youtu.be/KwUG2bOHqFA?si=DKm2Y_I53Qdfuh-b

The best explanation I’ve seen is the so called MarALago Accord[1]. I think the core thesis is that the US dollar and the US military being so core to all trade in the world had mad the US disadvantaged in terms of trade competitiveness. The accord is a set of goals/approaches to reduce that, theeeby making the US dollar more appealing for exports, other currencies less appealing.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_second...

People's models for the world have been massively disrupted. What we knew "before" is sort of thrown out the window now. These tariffs, if they are sustained, will create massive shifts that we cannot fully comprehend. It's like a massive physics system that's just received a shock.

I find it odd how many people continue to try and give this man the benefit of the doubt. Is it just hope? Hope that there is some grander plan and not just Trump doing stupid things that will in fact make everything worse because he's stuck in an 80s view of the world?

Intentionally cratering the economy raises unemployment, which applies downward pressure on wages, and allows entities that are cash-rich and privy to the timings of the intentional market shocks to buy up large swathes of the country for pennies on the dollar, which makes the merger of corporate and government power smoother and more easily total.

J. Paul Getty happened to be in the right place at the right time for the 1929 market crash to result in an explosion in his net worth, what’s happening here is akin to ultra wealthy individuals recreating Black Thursday with the only difference being that it has been very publicly engineered and telegraphed in advance.

That is the steelman, if you think that those things are good things.

The downturn would come either way, we are slamming headfirst into global warming consequences, other piled up risks and closing easy access resource ceeilings.

This way though the downfall is at least controlled, comparable to landing a wounded plane instead of breaking up midair. Big Olga never believed its own bull of "infinite growth" and parallel drove plans forward to keep civilization going in pockets once the "8billion can life like kings" bubble bursts. Bill Gates microreactors come to mind.

The rest of us go to hell, aka wars, martial law and civil war, preferably without damaging the pockets and without going nuclear. THANK YOU!

Sorry , to all those that fell for fusion, mars and star trek fantasies.

The steelman here is: it is better for a country to have a diverse manufacturing base and a net positive balance of trade. The only way to get manufacturing happening here is to make it more profitable to manufacture here than elsewhere. The only way to do that is to make sure everyone else’s cheap stuff is much more expensive, thereby creating a possible profit margin for local manufacturing. This medicine will be hard at first. But it will create a resilient economy where foreign wealth comes in (buying our goods) and national wealth stays home (purchasing locally made goods).

You didn’t ask for counter arguments but I’m sure we will see a wide range below this comment.

A broader picture here is to say neoliberal globalization is bad in that it removes local autonomy by creating a need for peaceful trading partners. Who is it bad for, and what sort of world would be good for those people is an exercise left to the reader.

EDIT: I like the vigorous comments and zero net score on this comment. don't blame the messenger guys, this is a fair statement of the steelman. It does not represent my own views.

> What would the best possible version of this policy look like if it were smart?

It depends extremely on what your actual goals are, but if we suppose the goal is to increase US manufacturing capacity and economic independence with minimal pain, you'd enact this on a time-table over a period of years, after building enough support across the political spectrum to make it look like this policy will be essentially, if perhaps with some occasional tweaks, be maintained across administrations for some time. You'd also probably not significantly tariff the whole world, at any point.

The biggest problem with this approach is investor confidence. It's hard to sign on the dotted line to spend billions building factories when it's difficult to say with any certainty that these tariffs will still be around by the end of the year, let alone in five years. This was doomed to be way more painful than necessary when he started flip-flopping on this over the last couple months, regardless of whether it's even fundamentally any sort of a good idea.

If the goal's to replace large portions of income tax, as has been suggested by some including by Trump, uh... the math just don't work even with a drastically smaller federal government, it's nonsense, there's no "best possible" version there.

Intentionally nuking stocks causes investors to retreat for safety in bonds specifically treasuries. Demand for treasuries drives the interest rates on them down. The US has to refinance $10 trillion of existing debt this year. By driving rates down it save the federal government hundreds of billions in interest payments.

He has actually reposted a video confirming this outlook.

Another angle is he is targeting China. China is in a precarious domestic economic sitaution as well. It weakens China by reducing its exports. In addition tariffs if high enough for long enough encourage local manufacturing. If we go to war with China over Taiwan, it will be very easy for China to convert existing commercial factories to produce military goods. Much harder for us as so much of our manufacturing infrastructure has lain fallow. Its not a good idea to go to war with the country that makes everything you rely on.

I'm not saying these are valid ideas or it will play out like that. I'm saying this is what admin is thinking.

Also if you feel like a read, this is a paper by Trumps leading economic advisor Stephen Miran

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...

Here is a write up on the forecasted tariff impact, from the team that makes investment decisions at Wells Fargo.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gk7TTyAYgyvvoP6szjV7J5wjjkC...

I believe people are arguing for tariffs now are mostly not arguing that tariffs are good but that the world needs to level the playing field and that the US imposing tariffs now is a way to force that to happen. The US has lost quite a bit of industrial production to China and other nations over the years and argument is that this isn't simply low Chinese wages but a variety of trade barriers and trade subsidies. The rosy scenario is that Trump imposes these measures, other nations offer concessions and the barriers are mostly lifted with trade now being more in the US' favor.

The problem with this scenario is that every nation naturally has it's own idea of what is fair and that many things that are trade barriers are around politically sensitive issues (safety and purity standards, etc). So getting other nations to immediately drop stuff isn't that easy.

The analogy is war - after a short engagement, the trade-warring nation will "come home victorious". Like regular war, this scenario often doesn't come to pass.

this video had a few good points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA

I don't think steelmanning an argument works if the argument is made in bad faith. Steelmanning should be about trying to understand legitimate reasons for a positions, not bullshit arguments. About being fair and intellectually honest, and not about trying to act like a PR firm for the other person.

That said, if you want to make sense of the reasons behind the tariffs, I can offer a couple that would be reasons why Trump would implement tariffs.

1. While they are within his power, they are a cudgel he can use to hurt his enemies and show favoritism (and be open to bribes to get them lifted).

2. Trump has a weird obsession with tariffs, even after he lost a trade war with China in 2018 and had to bail out farmers with a bailout larger than the one to General Motors.

3. Also, as one of Trump's Wharton business school professors has stated numerous times, "Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had."

In theory companies like Apple could bring manufacturing back to US.

The best (if not only) valid argument for tariffs is that they can be used to negotiate lower tariffs. Because tariffs only serve to reduce trade, which mathematically is suboptimal for economic output, and has been recognized as such by nearly every economist since David Ricardo.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump doesn't agree with that. Or his handlers don't. Not that the distinction matters anymore. The diplomatic and trade relations that we are destroying right now can't just be fixed by electing a new President. This is the US's Suez Crisis...we are no longer a world leader.

Trump is wrecking the US at the behest of Putin, directly or indirectly doesn't really matter.

Hence he didn't put tariffs on Russia.

The real question to ask is what comes next: What will Trump do with the tariff money?

That is what's going to determine if the policy is good or bad - if he uses it to boost manufacturing in the US, add jobs, even give people a rebate, it could do good things for the US.

You don't need to try and imagine why they're doing it, because Trump has said why for the last 30 years. He sees our trade deficit as as "the US being taken advantage of."

There is no economic argument for tariffs. There are mountains of theory and empirical historical evidence that they make countries poorer.

The motivation for these tariffs are not economic or financial.

They are being used by a narcissist as a tool to force others prostate themselves on front of him. Whether foreign leaders - who will have to "kiss the ring" pleading the case for their country to get relief - or domestic CEOs who will now have join a queue to plead with Trump for exemptions for their particular sector (like the auto business CEOs have).

We've already seen it with social media CEOs who queued up to offer him money and support, we're seeing it with law firms whose very existence he has threatened by EO forcing senior partners to not only bend to his will but to humiliate themselves in doing so and we seen university presidents do similar.

The tariff stuff is a continuation and escalation of that policy.

The cost is to America's reputation, international standing and economic well-being and will be borne for decades. The benefits are ephemeral - an ego massage for DJ Trump.

The coherent endgame is to ensure a fascist takeover of America by ensuring CEOs are at the mercy of POTUS. First the political party fell, then its representatives in Congress, then judiciary. The control of political institutions and education system has been assumed.

But free trade and commerce is antithetical to fascism. Unless the dictator can assume total control, his position is untenable. The goal is to form an equivalent of CCP Politburo and Putin in the form of POTUS + small number of hand-picked techbros. You can't achieve that goal unless you control commerce.

All of this is laid out in writings of Dark Enlightenment adherents and sanitized through Project 2025. Ironically, the people who complain the most about their freedoms being destroyed because their Facebook post saying COVID is a hoax was deleted not only will willingly submit to this, but also be its key enablers.

Here's a plausible steelman argument, drawing from insights from CEA Chair Stephen Miran and a paper he authored pre-administration titled "A user's guide to restructuring a global trading system"

https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...

It is a blueprint for "tariff based upheavel". It proposes using 'unilateral U.S. tariffs as leverage' to force other countries into a new accord, dubbed by some a potential "Mar-a-Lago Accord," analogous to Bretton Woods, that would include 'coordinated currency realignments'.

Miran argued that because the strong dollar has made U.S. exports uncompetitive and fueled chronic deficits, the U.S. might need to pressure other countries to strengthen their currencies (i.e. weaken the dollar) through a trade war if necessary. Alongside this potential grand strategy, it's also argue the tariffs directly address specific issues like unfair trade practices (the 'reciprocity' argument), dumping, reliance on adversarial supply chains (national security), and aim to incentivize domestic manufacturing investment.

Elements of Miran's thinking in the paper are evident in the Administration's approach. For instance, Trump aides publicly claim they are targeting countries with "artificially devalued" currencies for tougher tariffs and the President frames tariffs as "reciprocal", a hint that the endgame is to make others lower their trade barriers or adjust currency values to balance trade.

This strategic thinking appears connected to the 'traffic light' system mentioned by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.. https://instituteofgeoeconomics.org/en/research/2025040302/

Direct quote: "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has mentioned, the US could have a “traffic light” system that divides the world into three tiers: “green” countries with shared values, aligned economic and security goals, and a willingness to cooperate on exchange rates; “yellow” or neutral countries that want to keep high tariffs and remain outside the US defense system; and “red” countries, meaning adversaries or sanctioned nations that refuse to cooperate."

I think that adds potential useful context around where we might expect countries to align and what the intent is. Or perhaps as I've seen it put more inflammatorily, there are "vassals", "neutral" and "adversaries".

One last note would be that comparisons to the 1930s Smoot-Hawley tariffs are often made but the context is fundamentally different. In the 1930s, the US was a major creditor nation with large trade surpluses and dominant manufacturing. Today it's a large debtor nation seeking to revitalize its industrial base and reduce deficits within a far more globalized system. It's not quite fair to call it protectionism (as a sole objective) and the time period doesn't generalize to today's America.

With those datapoints....

The steelman perspective is that this is less short-term theater and more a high-stakes, potentially disruptive strategy aimed at fundamentally restructuring the global trading system. The intended endgame is to reassert U.S. economic advantage, enhance national security through resilient supply chains, and better align global economic rules with U.S. interests in a changed geopolitical landscape, using U.S. market access and currency centrality as key leverage.

To be clear, this doesn't imply that I agree. I’m not convinced it’ll succeed as intended, but that’s the best-case rationale. It might be a "Hail Mary" to prevent ceding global leadership to China.. or a way to "hit reset".

This doesn't directly answer the question, but global free trade has been a calamity for the middle- and working-class. It needs to be razed to the ground, and salt sowed in the fields, etc. This is one way of ending it.

Consider the case of Phil Knight of Nike. Here's what someone posted on Twitter (I don't know the account so obviously don't endorse everything, or anything else, it says):

"Knight's big "innovation" in shoe manufacturing was figuring out how to be one of the first people to flood the American market with cheaply made plastic footwear from Asia. Knight didn't make better, more durable shoes; he made cheaper ones by blowing up the native American industry.

Access to slave labor is, in the short run, a competitive advantage over skilled free labor.

In 1990, 10 years after the Nike IPO, there were 85,000 Americans employed making shoes. Today there are only 10,000 and 99% of our shoes are made overseas. The only exception is footwear for the military.

Phil Knight, however, is worth $35 billion and Nike has a market cap of $90 billion.

In other words, the good middle class wages once generated by homegrown American shoe manufacturing have been transformed by outsourcing into equities owned by a small class of investors and one insanely wealthy oligarch.

Global free trade is a way for the powerful to screw over the middle class by forcing them to compete with third world slave labor.

Yes, with high tariffs, Americans would have to pay slightly more for shoes. In return, however, they would be subsidizing good paying jobs and a decentralized industrial base in their own communities.

Global free trade, on the other hand, subsidizes massive increases in asset valuation. If you are one of the first "in on the ground floor" then you can make insane amounts of money by blowing up middle class wages by outsourcing those jobs overseas.

Libertarians and Wall Street types love to call this "capitalism" and the "free market" at work, but in reality, they are defrauding their countrymen out of the opportunity to build products themselves.

Americans are no longer able to make shoes at home. That option is not available to you. How can we call this a "free market" when it constrains our choices?

Outsourcing is 100% a government subsidy. It is a privilege, allowed by the state, to a select few citizens who figure out how to manipulate the international market to their advantage.

Phil Knight discovered the much cheaper Asian shoe market in the early 1960s because he had the money to travel abroad. His middle class neighbors making an honest living making shoes did not have that opportunity."

I am in the minority here. These tariffs are fairly reasonable. Here's why:

(1) The state has a compelling interest in regulating market risk tolerance. When the FED sets the risk-free interest rate, it controls the price of risk, and thereby the risk of the entire market. It is often advisable to temper the risk-eager market for long-term stability.

(2) Likewise, when the POTUS enacts tariffs, it is similarly setting the market's risk tolerance--namely against the risks concomitant of economic dependency on foreign nations.

(3) This will inoculate the economy against external supply chain shocks (at the extreme: war) by reducing our liability. It's not just consumers who are price-sensitive; given goods within a class will not be affected equally, natural price advantages will emerge, shifting demand and consumption as all levels of economy begin to price-in these tariffs.

The "economic consensus" against these tariffs just isn't real? It's exceedingly likely that the US likely will be better off because of them :)

The most credible arguments (IMO) are:

* National Security - we need to be able to make or trade for what we need in the case of war. Even non-tariff economists will give you this one but it can become a slippery slope. We need some capacity to make semiconductors, some steel/aluminum, pharmaceuticals, drones, etc.

* Tank the 10-year. If people pour into treasuries, the 10-year drops and we can refinance our debt a lot cheaper.

* Force a renegotiation of unfair trade agreements.

Weak arguments (IMO):

* bring back manufacturing jobs - even if we reshore some manufacturing, it'll be at the cost of many more other jobs and that manufacturing will be highly automated. No capital appetite exists to do this. No CEO wants to do this. We don't have the infrastructure or supply chains for this.

What is very difficult to defend is the implementation even if you agree with plan. No one outside the trump bubble can really defend the on-again-off-again, inconsistent communication, or board of imaginary numbers used for these. Some float "madman theory" as part of design on renegotiations but I don't think people will make deals with 'madmen' they can't trust and instead are much more likely to build coalitions against them.