The “orange one” does not “hold all of the cards”. He is critically threatened by his foreign handlers and the US justice system. He was not elected to promote a trade war. No one expected a trade war. He merely “shadow boxed” during his first term on trade. He has made the “trade war” his first priority because it is a “sure win” politically, in the short-run. He first bluffed exaggerated 50% and 100% tariffs, and the media duly reported these crazy claims that anchor or outline the story. He now claims HUGE victories with 15% tariffs. The self-described GOAT negotiator thereby proves his standing. He claims victory. He uses this temporary bump in support to take over the government.

Citizens need to recognize that this is clearly not a “win” for the country. Import tariffs are simply taxes. They get split between the foreign exporter, the importer and the retail customer. At 15%, the typical payment split is 25%, 25% and 50%. Exporters still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They have fixed costs. They have profits. They can reduce prices in the short-term. Importers still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They can limit price increases in the short-term. Most markets are “sticky”. Brands, supply chains, habits, marketing and convenience matter. Import costs are half to three-quarters of retail prices. The consumer price increase is 5-8%. Some consumers switch to lower priced options, some don’t. The “next best” low price option for an imported good is probably another imported good. The “Trump tariffs” distort markets. They don’t deliver a “victory” for American consumers, producers, labor, finance or government. They merely “gum up the works”.

The “orange one” understands leverage, populism and persuasion. He really doesn’t understand markets, as demonstrated by his dozens of business failures. A 15% import tariff will cause pain for foreign exporters, US importers and consumers. It’s not large enough to cause a domestic firm to invest in expanded capacity. They will use all of their existing capacity and even cut prices a little to win market share. Manufacturing investments require 20-30-40 year timeframes to be viable. They require confidence in government policies on trade, regulations, antitrust, labor, environment, intellectual property, lobbying, property taxes, inventory taxes, corporate income taxes, international taxes, international finance, transportation, supply chains, labor costs, etc. Trump’s policies strongly work against such investments.

US industries don’t import goods to save just 10%. They import goods because the total cost of imports is at least 20% lower and trending in the right direction. Importing always has extra costs for transportation, communications, delays, coordination, property risks, quality control, product development, supplier management, flexibility, tariff risks on both ends, legal risks, capital controls, financial transactions, inventory, obsolescence, etc. There is a “step function” involved here. US firms from 1970-2000 only relinquished their domestic manufacturing because when they completely ignored all fixed costs and only looked at short-term variable costs, they had to outsource production. There will be no overall manufacturing renaissance. There will be some very low labor cost manufacturing that returns to the states. That is, only where labor costs are a small percentage of the total production cost. Hence the “job creation” impact will be tiny, impossible to measure.

So … if they won’t build new factories, what will be the leading responses of domestic importers? They will find ways to import/reroute goods from lowest tariff countries. They will find ways to reclassify goods and avoid tariffs. They will lobby for exemptions. They will import only key components and do “final assembly” locally in highly automated factories. They will hold imported goods in a Free Trade Zone. They will split physical products from services and intellectual property to minimize tariffs. They will lobby for domestic government subsidies. They will offer “service hour models” to customers as in aircraft engines and never sell the physical goods and incur the tariffs.

Will the import tariffs reduce the federal budget deficit? Yes. The US imports 15% of GDP. Tariffs will be applied to about half of the imports. Imports will be reduced and replaced by domestic production, a little. 15% of 5% is about 0.75% of GDP. The federal budget deficit is 6.5% and climbing. This will help a little. Consumers will pay for half of this as in a sales tax.

What are the secondary impacts of the tariffs? Domestic firms will invest management time and money in managing the system instead of developing better goods and services. Lower import competition often leads to higher prices overall. Domestic producers experience higher input costs and attempt to pass them along to consumers. Foreign countries will increase their tariff and non-tariff barriers to US exporters. The US loses its moral advantage as a promoter of “free trade”. The US loses opportunities to reduce trade barriers through global and regional “free trade” agreements. The US loses the opportunity to drive global labor and environmental standards. The US loses the opportunity to expand free trade in services, the industries of the future. The US’s “unfair advantage” as the manager of the US dollar as the global currency will be challenged. The US’s soft power in language, arts, education, language, culture, and global leadership will be questioned. The US’s role as a stalwart ally will be undermined, leading to merely costlier and unreliable transactional relations with former allies. Foreign citizens will choose to not consume US goods and services. The US will have to pay directly for its global military bases. The US will have to pay for allies’ support on the “war on terror”. The US will have to pay for all global initiatives. The US will have to directly control “rogue states”. The indirect costs are HUGE and unappreciated.

Why did the US pursue the post WW II new world order? Ending imperialism and colonies. Forming the United Nations and trying to use it to manage some conflicts. Principles of political self-determination and human rights. Global bodies for better health. Investments in Germany, Italy, Japan and Europe instead of reparations. International Monetary Foundation and World Bank to support developing nations and manage currencies. GATT and WTO to promote lower trade barriers and multilateral deals. NATO and other alliances rather than colonies and protectorates. The win/lose approach of the 1800’s, WWI and WWII had failed. The world was ready to try a win/win approach. The US, with its history of isolationism, exceptionalism and national independence, chose to not pursue “world dominance”. The post- WWII institutions were not perfect, but they demonstrated that they were much better than those that had governed international relations for the prior 500 years.

Again, put everything in perspective. The US imports 15% of GDP. 15% import tariffs on half of goods. Consumers adjust and substitute domestic and lower total price imports. US consumers pay a 1% sales tax on imported goods. US military and influence costs rise by much more than 1% of GDP. Consumers pay higher prices. The US has less global influence. Where is the win? Marginal manufacturing plants and jobs are not returning to the US, no matter what the “orange one” says unless they are subsidized by the local, state or national government.

This is just another “con” by the “orange one”. We want to believe that American jobs have been unfairly stolen by government subsidized factories and low-cost labor without environmental protections in foreign countries. There is a grain of truth in each claim. Foreign governments do subsidize export firms. They try to maintain low currency values to support exports. They accept low total labor costs and environmental damages. Every country tries to be globally competitive.

No “magic wand” exists to force or entice everyone into embracing win/win institutions or deals naively. There is always an incentive to be a “free rider”, taking advantage of the global deals and quietly not really complying, just like some oil producers in OPEC. There is always an advantage for a single country with enough power to “hold out” or bluff or play “chicken” to extract a better deal for that country than for the others. This is the real world of bargaining, negotiations and deal-making. No system, philosophy, institutions, social pressure, or trump card easily delivers win/win results without overcoming the win/lose incentives of the game’s players.

There was a time when “Republicans” were supposedly the party of realism, pragmatism, common sense, business, efficiency, logic, finance, trade, capitalism, science, industry, proof, objectivity, best practices, and elite opinion. “Democrats” allegedly appealed to emotions, wishes, utopias, fairness, justice, perspectives, hopes, possibilities, oppression, victimhood, persuasion, popular opinion, populism, and ideals. The post-WWII institutions were supported on a bipartisan basis for more than 50 years. In 1992, President Clinton and the Democratic party embraced the “third way”, fully supporting these policies, capitalism and limited government, despite criticisms from the progressive, new, far left. The post – WWII system of international institutions has been criticized as “globalism” and “neo-liberalism” by the left wing of the Democratic party.

The post-WWII institutions were not perfect for Democrats, Republicans, the USA or the global community. But they worked incredibly well. Real global GDP has increased by 40 times since 1945, from $2.5 trillion to $100 trillion!!!!! That is 4.72% real growth compounded year after year after year for 80 years, coming out of a world war, encompassing a cold war, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, a global pandemic, the collapse of birth rates, business cycles, financial panics, energy crises, Middle East wars, and terrorism.

The US real GDP increased by more than 11X in the same period, growing by 3.1% annually.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

A comparable 80-year period before the Great Depression shows just 4-fold global real GDP growth, not 40-fold. Of course, much of this difference is due to differences other than the post-WWII institutions. This was a time of 1.75% annual growth rather than the modern 4.72%. The 3% annual difference compounded across 80 years delivers 10 times greater growth. This is not a marginal advantage. This is an UNBELIEVABLE advantage. This is difficult to communicate. Small percentage differences across a lifetime.

Summary

The “bottom line” is that the “orange one” only believes in “win/lose” and rejects any form of “win/win”. The post-WWII institutions are win/win, so they must be rejected. Capitalism, alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, modern supplier relations, families, communities, nations, treaties, fraternities, sororities, ecosystems, clubs, cooperatives, unions, study partners, mentors/mentees, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, social enterprises, not-for-profits, churches, service organizations and many others are win/win. The “win/lose” framework supports the “orange one’s” desired position as a great leader needed to save the people.

Free trade has provided truly amazing benefits for the US and the world. The post-WWII cooperative institutions have reduced wars and conflicts. The “Trump tariffs” will slow global economic growth. They will not provide any material benefits for the US.

The US has enough economic, social, political and military power to force country by country “deals” that appear to benefit the US, when considered in a short-term win/lose framework. These deals will harm the US and the global economy.

From 1945-2000 “free trade” was Republican economic orthodoxy. “Free trade” benefitted US multi-national corporations which had the ability to take advantage of global markets. The US economy and labor markets were flexible enough to manage the changes. Capitalism was supported as the best economic system versus communism, fascism, socialism, protectionism, imperialism, colonialism or mercantilism. US financial institutions were well positioned to facilitate trade. US universities were ready to educate the world. Imported goods and immigrant labor drove lower US wages.

Trump is appealing to his populist base to oppose the “others” of immigrants, non-whites, non-fundamentalist Christians, criminals, thieves, rapists, sweat shops, subsidized factories, polluters, underpaid workers, etc. “We should produce everything we need in America. We have the factory capacity, finances and skills to do so.” He appeals to nationalism while ignoring the critical principle of comparative advantage. Countries export only what they are very best at growing, producing or serving. They do not produce everything themselves just like states, firms and individuals that are not fully self-sufficient.