You studied through a filter - citing a very simplistic view of history and tarrifs pre income tax. Check out Austrian Economics if you're going to argue this thesis. Make sure it can be measured against the fundamental rules of economics.
Tarrifs without income tax has to include extreme reduction in government to work. Also, deflation occurred during the period up to the 16th amendment. Learn why.
After Trump's washing machine tariffs, dryer prices rose by 11%, despite not being tariffed, because manufacturers bundled price hikes. US manufacturers rely on global supply chains, and retaliatory tariffs from trade partners hit American exporters hard—just ask US soybean farmers who lost billions when China retaliated.
You fundamentally misunderstand both economic theory and empirical evidence.
Your argument ignores that trade barriers don't create wealth - they destroy it. When you restrict voluntary exchange through tariffs, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions that would have created value for both parties. This is basic economics - if two parties want to trade and you stop them, you've made both worse off.
Your historical analysis misses crucial context. Yes, America had high tariffs in the 19th century - and Americans paid significantly higher prices for basic goods as a result. The country grew despite these tariffs, not because of them, driven by factors like strong property rights, relatively free internal markets, and massive immigration.
You've cherry-picked and misinterpreted the recent data. Looking at specific products over short time periods ignores the broader economic damage. When Trump imposed steel tariffs, every American manufacturer using steel as an input faced higher costs. Studies estimate these tariffs destroyed more manufacturing jobs in steel-using industries than they created in steel production.
Your "domestic manufacturing" argument ignores comparative advantage. Nations prosper by specializing in what they do best and trading freely. Forcing domestic production of everything through trade barriers makes the whole economy less efficient and productive.
Most importantly, your support for tariffs means advocating government coercion - forcing peaceful people to pay more for goods they want to buy or blocking them from buying at all. This violates both economic freedom and individual liberty. The proper role of government is protecting property rights and enforcing contracts, not deciding what citizens can buy and from whom.
Your claim that tariffs don't raise prices defies both logic and evidence. If foreign goods become artificially more expensive through tariffs, either consumers pay more or they're forced to switch to more expensive domestic substitutes. There's no escaping this basic reality.
Free trade isn't just economically efficient - it's a fundamental human right. People should be free to engage in voluntary exchange with whoever they choose, regardless of arbitrary political boundaries.
Just the comparison to the 1850 American economy is wild. As if it, or the world economy in general, is in any way comparable to the current world after two World Wars, the Cold War, digital revolution, etc.
America can't compete with countries that enslave their people. Tariffs are needed to punish counties whose goods are cheaper because of their poor labour standards (China).
Some of your points are valid. I know you're a Trump lover because you are voting your Crytpo position. Can't say as I blame you. But get real, the only reason he's being himself is to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It didn't work for Reagan and it won't be effective now.
Good one. One problem tho is that these tariffs against Mexico and Canada are designed to exact concessions for the two sides not to balance trade (tho this could be a backroom talk as our trade deficit with both of them is growing and USMCA is up for its 30 year renewal next year) but to get them to stop border crossings and do something about its fentanyl shipments. That said, Mexico, in particular (Canada barely has a govt at the moment) will likely do what Washington asks. They did what Biden asked and they will do what Trump asked. Biden told them to keep the border wide open and do nothing about the millions of people caravanining to the border, leaving a mess everywhere. Mexico did not want that. They werent Mexicans, for the most part, about to send remittances back home. But Mexico allowed it cuz DC asked for it. DC is now asking for something different and I believe Mexico will follow along as it is in their interests to do so. On the fetty side, we could see the waning days of Jalisco NG, Sinaloa and Gulf. When the Trump admin sees reasonable movement on these issues, those tariffs will come off. They are different than the Section 232s steel tariffs you mention and the Section 201 solar tariffs. Also, solar investments were not ONLY due to tariffs, but also because of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Washing machines are a good example.
Trump will use tariffs three ways:
1) To exact concessions from a govt. See Colombia. These will be short lived, unless a govt says no we will not do this or that. I call these "help a brother out" tariffs.
2) revenue. This will be a low tariff globally, maybe sparing FTAs? Not sure...and is designed for two reasons: curtail growth in the fiscal deficit now near $2 trillion. And raise enough revenue to convince Congress it can afford to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
3) Balance trade. These tariffs will be longer term, and focus on sectors (think steel, solar and maybe cars, too) or countries that overproduce, namely China.
Maybe it's just me, but slapping 25% across-the-board tariffs on your two closest neighbors and goading China into a potential trade war does not sound like a good idea. You have some good data, and some interesting examples, but I'm still skeptical.
Most of your examples show post-tariff prices exceeding pre-tariff prices. You argue that this is due to the pandemic and that prices would have been lower without it. However, since the pandemic did occur, this claim is impossible to verify.
On dodging the free market with tariffs
Historically, the U.S. adopted protectionism when it was at a cost disadvantage against Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Tariffs protected domestic industries in large markets. Once the U.S. became the world's lowest-cost producer, it shifted to free trade—not out of generosity, but because protectionism was no longer needed.
Economic progress is irreversible. Capital naturally moves from unviable industries to higher-return sectors, fueling innovation. The U.S. thrived by reallocating capital when industries like textile manufacturing became uncompetitive. This cycle of adaptation has kept the U.S. a global leader.
The notion that companies will flock to the U.S. to invest and create jobs mirrors Brazil’s failed strategy. Propping up uncompetitive industries with government support only creates economic stagnation. While some firms may relocate, many will shift operations elsewhere. The world is bigger than the U.S., no matter its size.
On replacing income tax
A return to an era without income tax, where tariffs funded the government, is unrealistic. The government was much smaller then, and its expansion largely stemmed from the need to prevent social unrest. Reducing government size is desirable, but widespread exclusion and poverty, as seen in the 19th century, are not.
Mathematically, tariffs cannot replace income tax. In 2023, income tax generated $4.7 trillion, while total U.S. imports were under $4 trillion. Would you impose a 125% across-the-board tariff to compensate? Would imports remain constant? Would exports not suffer massive retaliation? Eliminating income tax entirely is infeasible—this is a fact, not media bias.
Thank you Pomp for the analysis! I’ve been pointing people to look at this America First Strategy different and this helps. From the looks of many comments, it’s apparent this nation is feeling defeated and bewildered. This country is in serious, serious trouble!! Tariffs and Cutting government spending is SMART and its just the start of the overhaul needed.
This is all relevant, and I agree- the tariffs will work; but this is a short play. I'm sure you know this. "The world will respond to these tariffs, but not in the way you think...."
Unfortunately, you failed to factor into the premise of tariffs are good, the FED and their interference in the “market” economy, as well as the exponential rise of debt.
The world has changed with the rise of BRICS and, thanks to our sanctions and theft, their influence and autonomy will accelerate. Factor in 100+ countries within the Global South, Silk Road and North South Corridor and one can paint a very different picture. America First is great, but a dose of reality is- the last 50 years we shot ourselves in the head, thanks to the 🤡act in DC and EU.
i would like to hear your opinion on the role that tarrifs have in the dominance of the usd. Being the provider of the world reserve currency you need to run defecits and provide the all world your with your dollars. This is the reason the us can sustain such high levels of debt. However, starting trade wars with your closest comercial parteners and start having more positive trade balances the dollar will became stronger and stronger. This can only happen until certain point: this being until the debt is no longer sustainable and foreigners begin to sell us assets like crazy. This or massive QE and equally massive inflation
You studied through a filter - citing a very simplistic view of history and tarrifs pre income tax. Check out Austrian Economics if you're going to argue this thesis. Make sure it can be measured against the fundamental rules of economics.
Tarrifs without income tax has to include extreme reduction in government to work. Also, deflation occurred during the period up to the 16th amendment. Learn why.
Here's a start https://mises.org/mises-wire/william-mckinley-prostitute-protectionism
he did, but there's some truth to this. albeit, this is a short play, from a declining superpower.
It’s amazing how often you talk yourself into bullshit.
After Trump's washing machine tariffs, dryer prices rose by 11%, despite not being tariffed, because manufacturers bundled price hikes. US manufacturers rely on global supply chains, and retaliatory tariffs from trade partners hit American exporters hard—just ask US soybean farmers who lost billions when China retaliated.
You fundamentally misunderstand both economic theory and empirical evidence.
Your argument ignores that trade barriers don't create wealth - they destroy it. When you restrict voluntary exchange through tariffs, you prevent mutually beneficial transactions that would have created value for both parties. This is basic economics - if two parties want to trade and you stop them, you've made both worse off.
Your historical analysis misses crucial context. Yes, America had high tariffs in the 19th century - and Americans paid significantly higher prices for basic goods as a result. The country grew despite these tariffs, not because of them, driven by factors like strong property rights, relatively free internal markets, and massive immigration.
You've cherry-picked and misinterpreted the recent data. Looking at specific products over short time periods ignores the broader economic damage. When Trump imposed steel tariffs, every American manufacturer using steel as an input faced higher costs. Studies estimate these tariffs destroyed more manufacturing jobs in steel-using industries than they created in steel production.
Your "domestic manufacturing" argument ignores comparative advantage. Nations prosper by specializing in what they do best and trading freely. Forcing domestic production of everything through trade barriers makes the whole economy less efficient and productive.
Most importantly, your support for tariffs means advocating government coercion - forcing peaceful people to pay more for goods they want to buy or blocking them from buying at all. This violates both economic freedom and individual liberty. The proper role of government is protecting property rights and enforcing contracts, not deciding what citizens can buy and from whom.
Your claim that tariffs don't raise prices defies both logic and evidence. If foreign goods become artificially more expensive through tariffs, either consumers pay more or they're forced to switch to more expensive domestic substitutes. There's no escaping this basic reality.
Free trade isn't just economically efficient - it's a fundamental human right. People should be free to engage in voluntary exchange with whoever they choose, regardless of arbitrary political boundaries.
Just the comparison to the 1850 American economy is wild. As if it, or the world economy in general, is in any way comparable to the current world after two World Wars, the Cold War, digital revolution, etc.
America can't compete with countries that enslave their people. Tariffs are needed to punish counties whose goods are cheaper because of their poor labour standards (China).
Some of your points are valid. I know you're a Trump lover because you are voting your Crytpo position. Can't say as I blame you. But get real, the only reason he's being himself is to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It didn't work for Reagan and it won't be effective now.
I didn’t subscribe to you or your revisionist history. Reporting spam.
lol thank you because i thought my bullshit filter was off
When crypto bros do economics and history. 🤮
What a dilettante!
Unsubscribing from this dreck.
Good one. One problem tho is that these tariffs against Mexico and Canada are designed to exact concessions for the two sides not to balance trade (tho this could be a backroom talk as our trade deficit with both of them is growing and USMCA is up for its 30 year renewal next year) but to get them to stop border crossings and do something about its fentanyl shipments. That said, Mexico, in particular (Canada barely has a govt at the moment) will likely do what Washington asks. They did what Biden asked and they will do what Trump asked. Biden told them to keep the border wide open and do nothing about the millions of people caravanining to the border, leaving a mess everywhere. Mexico did not want that. They werent Mexicans, for the most part, about to send remittances back home. But Mexico allowed it cuz DC asked for it. DC is now asking for something different and I believe Mexico will follow along as it is in their interests to do so. On the fetty side, we could see the waning days of Jalisco NG, Sinaloa and Gulf. When the Trump admin sees reasonable movement on these issues, those tariffs will come off. They are different than the Section 232s steel tariffs you mention and the Section 201 solar tariffs. Also, solar investments were not ONLY due to tariffs, but also because of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Washing machines are a good example.
Trump will use tariffs three ways:
1) To exact concessions from a govt. See Colombia. These will be short lived, unless a govt says no we will not do this or that. I call these "help a brother out" tariffs.
2) revenue. This will be a low tariff globally, maybe sparing FTAs? Not sure...and is designed for two reasons: curtail growth in the fiscal deficit now near $2 trillion. And raise enough revenue to convince Congress it can afford to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
3) Balance trade. These tariffs will be longer term, and focus on sectors (think steel, solar and maybe cars, too) or countries that overproduce, namely China.
Maybe it's just me, but slapping 25% across-the-board tariffs on your two closest neighbors and goading China into a potential trade war does not sound like a good idea. You have some good data, and some interesting examples, but I'm still skeptical.
On your general claim
Most of your examples show post-tariff prices exceeding pre-tariff prices. You argue that this is due to the pandemic and that prices would have been lower without it. However, since the pandemic did occur, this claim is impossible to verify.
On dodging the free market with tariffs
Historically, the U.S. adopted protectionism when it was at a cost disadvantage against Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Tariffs protected domestic industries in large markets. Once the U.S. became the world's lowest-cost producer, it shifted to free trade—not out of generosity, but because protectionism was no longer needed.
Economic progress is irreversible. Capital naturally moves from unviable industries to higher-return sectors, fueling innovation. The U.S. thrived by reallocating capital when industries like textile manufacturing became uncompetitive. This cycle of adaptation has kept the U.S. a global leader.
The notion that companies will flock to the U.S. to invest and create jobs mirrors Brazil’s failed strategy. Propping up uncompetitive industries with government support only creates economic stagnation. While some firms may relocate, many will shift operations elsewhere. The world is bigger than the U.S., no matter its size.
On replacing income tax
A return to an era without income tax, where tariffs funded the government, is unrealistic. The government was much smaller then, and its expansion largely stemmed from the need to prevent social unrest. Reducing government size is desirable, but widespread exclusion and poverty, as seen in the 19th century, are not.
Mathematically, tariffs cannot replace income tax. In 2023, income tax generated $4.7 trillion, while total U.S. imports were under $4 trillion. Would you impose a 125% across-the-board tariff to compensate? Would imports remain constant? Would exports not suffer massive retaliation? Eliminating income tax entirely is infeasible—this is a fact, not media bias.
Thank you Pomp for the analysis! I’ve been pointing people to look at this America First Strategy different and this helps. From the looks of many comments, it’s apparent this nation is feeling defeated and bewildered. This country is in serious, serious trouble!! Tariffs and Cutting government spending is SMART and its just the start of the overhaul needed.
This is all relevant, and I agree- the tariffs will work; but this is a short play. I'm sure you know this. "The world will respond to these tariffs, but not in the way you think...."
Unfortunately, you failed to factor into the premise of tariffs are good, the FED and their interference in the “market” economy, as well as the exponential rise of debt.
The world has changed with the rise of BRICS and, thanks to our sanctions and theft, their influence and autonomy will accelerate. Factor in 100+ countries within the Global South, Silk Road and North South Corridor and one can paint a very different picture. America First is great, but a dose of reality is- the last 50 years we shot ourselves in the head, thanks to the 🤡act in DC and EU.
i would like to hear your opinion on the role that tarrifs have in the dominance of the usd. Being the provider of the world reserve currency you need to run defecits and provide the all world your with your dollars. This is the reason the us can sustain such high levels of debt. However, starting trade wars with your closest comercial parteners and start having more positive trade balances the dollar will became stronger and stronger. This can only happen until certain point: this being until the debt is no longer sustainable and foreigners begin to sell us assets like crazy. This or massive QE and equally massive inflation
Great points Pomp. This comment section is going off on you, which is a great example of how right you are.
Adam Smith.