A Few More Tariff Thoughts
On "negotiation tactics," legal pathways, and such.
Let’s start by saying that “tariff” is an annoying word. I seem to never be able to remember if it is two r’s or two f’s (and occasionally pause and wonder, “is it double r and double f?” I mean, it just never looks right to be me. Google tells me that the word has its origins in Arabic and has come to English via Italian and French. So now you know.
Sadly, I think I am going to get used to spelling it the right way.
At any rate, a talking point that I have seen is that the tariff threat is just Trump trying to art the deal. For example, via Politico: Grassley: Trump’s new tariff threats are just ‘negotiating tool’ — for now.
“But right now, I see everything that Trump’s doing on tariffs as a negotiating tool,” he reiterated. “And we’ll have to wait and see how successful he is about that.”
Well, ok. But if what you are asking for is ending illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling, then the negotiating tactic in question needs to, you know, be connected to the thing you want. If I want a raise at work and I threaten my next-door neighbor with stealing his dog, I am not sure this is a great way to negotiate, even as an off-the-wall, disruptor move.
Meanwhile, the CRS has a good primer on the legal parameters regarding presidents and tariffs: Presidential Authority to Address Tariff Barriers in Trade Agreements.
See, also, A quick guide to Trump’s new tariffs from Wake Up to Politics, which has some historical charts of interest.
Also via CSIS: Making Tariffs Great Again: Does President Trump Have Legal Authority to Implement New Tariffs on U.S. Trading Partners and China?
“Hartmann“
@charontwo:
Count me as doubtful that tariffs’ will lead to a reinvigoration of US manufacturing. We no longer live in the 19th century.
trump invoked tariffs on imported steel, touting it as a benefit to US steel makers and six years later US Steel is trying to sell itself to Nippon Steel. All we got out of the trump steel tariffs was higher prices for domestically manufactured products that used a lot of steel.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-mexico-tariffs-sheinbaum-fentanyl-5fd2fc21950f47e5dbaf5c062c4725b7
And thus, the bullsh*t artist begins his foreign policy “weave.”
@charontwo:
If you’re going to insert a link, do you think you could take a few extra seconds and tell us what we’re supposed to click through to? Because personally I don’t like being ordered to do something, m-kay?
Post moved to open thread.
@charontwo:..Hartmann…
I like the surprise of what will pop up if I click here to see what’s behind the curtain like Friday Photo’s. I do not think that I am being compelled to do anything.
After all I could freely choose to ignore your link.
@Not the IT Dept.:
Maybe a bit harsh? I’ve always considered “naked” links to be a suggestion of further reading on the topic of the original post.
YMMV
Have a thankful Thanksgiving.
@Rob1:
It’s well known Mexico has been doing a lot to turn back migrants from elsewhere in Latin America for years, and more so since 2023.
It’s shocking, I know. But water is wet, fire is hot, ice is cold, and the felon is lying.
@charontwo:
Good read. Thanks for the link. But I’m skeptical of the positive spin Hartmann puts on the subject of tariffs.
“Then” is not “now.” The world has moved on, even from the Reagan-Clinton neoliberal “revolution” of a mere 40 years ago. Everything has gotten more intertwined, more interdependent, more transnational. In response, Putin and Xi have been attempting to pull back from a globalized world trying to preserve cultural sovereignty.
Hartmann mentions EV lithium batteries. Check out this flurry of activity taking place in constructing battery manufacturing plants:
These developments are taking place because apart from trade regulation supply chain logistics, JIT, etc. make economic sense.
And consider that we’ve just discovered huge sources of lithium and hydrogen in this country —- there are compelling reasons for localizing production aside from tariffs.
I’ll concede that judicious, incremental steps in the direction of trade protection may have some benefit. However, Hartmann is overly optimistic to suggest Trump will radically temper his grandiosity. After all, it is Trump’s bluster that connects him to his base. He hates appearing weak.
But the bigger factor here isn’t Trump’s temperament or the benefits of Hartmann’s incrementalism. The world is so utterly interdependent at this point in time, that despite the “pull back” and disparaging of “globalism,” it is totally baked into the cake of human civilization. This is a world comprised of transnational entities of commerce.
We already have one world government —- it’s called “money.” If we reverse course, it will have resulted from some catastrophic event.
@Rob1: Indeed.
Also, the “prior to Reagan” timeframe linked to good union jobs and manufacturing includes, and is really located, in the post-war 50s and 60s, wherein the US position vis-a-via the rest of the world was privileged in ways that are not replicable by policy.
I forget who said this, but Trump keeps doing the same thing:
Trump says he’ll do X, something outrageous.
Liberals express outrage at X.
Trump somehow wriggles out of doing X.
His base gives him credit for X anyway, and for owning the libs with X.
@Rob1:
Typical Trump behavior, claim credit for stuff already done before he became involved. It works, too, the MAGA’s always believe it. That is how he justifies when he fails to follow through on executing what he threatens, claim just the threat worked.
@Not the IT Dept.:
A recap of the history of tariffs in the U.S. Pretty much what the post topic would lead to expect. But I do apologize, the backstory is I was going out and did not take the time needed.
From Matt Yglesias:
I do not generally break out in hives at the thought of more tariffs. I went through the Reagan years like Hartmann describes, I heard all the arguments. I already reject the notion of, “this equation says policy X maximizes economic growth, that means policy X is the only acceptable policy.” We have other goals besides economic growth.
No it is the traditional conservatives, most of whom are Republicans, who have been more anti-tariff. A general tariff on China will mean a big boost in the prices at Walmart. How will this play out?
I don’t know if Grassley knows something or is just trying the influence game. However, if your team is bluffing, it is probably best not to say so out loud.
I went to see my man, twenty six dollars in my hand, to cop some fentanyl. I like to get stoned for national holidays. But he couldn’t get me a score. The threat of tariffs on Mexican avocados had turned the tap on illegal imports off. I told the dealer that it didn’t make any sense to stop the movement of illegal drugs because of a tax on an unrelated legal product. He smiled at me and said that I am just not as smart as Mr. Trump.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Bingo.
@charontwo:
Okay, I get it. Thanks for explaining. May the Turkey be with you!
@Jay L Gischer:
Only if all relevant parties are equally well informed. The bluff is not to influence Mexico/Canada/China but to influence low-information American voters. Grassley’s remarks were about reassuring the stock/bond markets.
@Mikey:
Yep. This week in things Trump presage 4 years of “same old same old.” Too bad a majority of voters wanted to watch reruns of the boobtube boob. I’m going to spend the next 4 years listening to music, reading books, and hiking.
@charontwo:
And why shouldn’t they believe it? The supposedly liberal MSM, much less FOX, barely reported that border encounters were way down, that action by Mexico negotiated by Biden and Harris was largely responsible, that inflation ended a year ago, that crime is at historic lows, that income is up, etc.
I suspect trump, or rather his advisors, are well aware that we are already seeing a large drop in fentanyl deaths. This widely known by those who follow the issue but AFAICT has not had much coverage in right wing media and not that much coverage in the MSM for that matter. As it seems likely the deaths will continue to drop he takes credit for threatening a tariff. Remember the washing machine tariff? Didnt it seem odd he singled those out? His team knew that Samsung and LG had already bought land and committed to building plants in the US, which they could claim was the result of the tariffs.
Remember that while to many people he seems like a grifter his marketing style works on lots of people. He is going to take credit for a number of things that already happening, like a strong economy, and for things that were going to happen anyway. Unfortunately, half the country will believe him.
Steve
@gVOR10:
I would take exception to one thing. The felon doesn’t so much wriggle out of doing something, as he finds it impossible to get it done and then abandons it and claims credit for doing it.
See the wall for an example. He couldn’t get his own party to approve it in Congress, nor the Democrats to go along. He went so far as to shut down the government to force them to agree to it, then barely managed something and had to abandon his big, beautiful wall that Mexico would somehow pay for with money approved by Congress*. then claimed credit for it.
*I half expected the felon to get Congress to approve a large loan to Mexico so they could pay for the wall with that money.
@gVOR10: Indeed. Which is why it might be wiser to quit enabling Trump’s out of the room air sucking by deferring outraged complaints about him for post inauguration.
Still, blogs succeed by giving readers what they want to read, so…
ETA: The most interesting element in the Hartmann article for me was Reagan’s identification as neoliberal.
Have a happy holiday, everyone.
@charontwo: @gVOR10: @steve: Kevin Drum finds another promise, reducing the debt, that Trump has already accomplished. In early 2020 debt was over 100% of GDP and has dropped to 95. Without the supposedly liberal MSM noticing.
@Slugger:
I’m hearing a Curtis Mayfield soundtrack in the background here…
The US already does a huge amount of manufacturing. However, it’s high value manufacturing, not mass manufacturing. And even if the low-value manufacturing moved back here (which if it did, would be bad, as it would probably mean that our high-value manufacturing has been destroyed), we won’t be returning to the time where some (white) uneducated men could work in a factory and support a family.