David Harsanyi writing at Townhall has a column which amounts to advocacy for ~~ let those other nations slap tariffs anyway they want, but we should not have tariffs because theirs are good for us, or something, and any tariff we apply to them is bad for us, oh, and by implication, any previous deal remains good forever.
The title assumes free trade exists. It does not.
Free Trade Already Puts America First
Read his column. Our response was as follows with some clerical adds and additional appended comment for this publication:
We believe Trump issued a challenge to the effect, let’s all have no tariffs. That was not mentioned. The steel comment by Harsanyi , that it is low tech and easily ramped up is wrong, as it is a matter of years as plants are not idled, an additional expense even if it were always true, they are closed and the land goes to other uses and the same thing happens to associated supplier industries. Skills deteriorate. Then, acquisition of sites and construction and talent can take years. We are not talking buggy whips.
DH may find all this “peace enhancing” it is instead the enhancement of a globalism that inhibits freedom which is not “peace”. Then there is the issue of dependence and leverage under DH’s scheme of let them keep our products out. His scheme is one of unilateral no tariffs on our part on the presumption it saves consumers money here. He also seems to assume that it is only a matter of dumb products which he purports steel to be, as if advancing countries don’t learn the services skills or high tech our exports are reduced to.
Because tariffs are indeed a type of tax, and all should be low, it is not as if internal tax policy and subsidies do not enter into the overall picture. Certainly “no tariff” does not mean no trade related costs or subsidies exist asif there is an absence of protectionism. If we or they call it something else is it OK, are we then living in a free trade world? DH knows better. Taxing to some extent foreign products makes them pay attention to their external economic impacts, maybe making them more efficient.
Unilateral no tariffs on our part (the apparent DH scheme of things) or unilateral complacency with no changes to existing agreements, as if a fair deal and some sort of equilibrium had been reached that has not resulted in forced and limiting adjustments imposed on our economy, (rather than as a result of natural competition) does not necessarily result in less “taxes” on consumers as government seeks to remain large to cope with the sequelae. Nor does no tariffs mean no trade related costs as the result of a comparatively reduced economy for lack of export business.
Trump wants a better deal for the country as a whole on trade. He has already indicated compromise is possible. Savings to consumers is not dependent on unilateral no tariff policy which DH seems to advocate.
That we have much to lose culturally, national sovereignty and national capacity in a myriad of areas should not be dismissed. If other countries will not abide by principle of fair trade, well it is entirely appropriate that we assert ourselves and no longer be taken advantage of. R Mall
