Comment by SmirkingRevenge
4 days ago
Maybe in rare cases, but for each of the various policy goals tariffs are used for, there are other kinds of targeted industrial policy that work better and cost less.
Tariffs are the most expensive way to try to onshore manufacturing. The cost per "job created" is astronomical usually. They incentivize corruption and black markets.
Even regular old subsidies are usually easier, cheaper, and less problematic
With as much respect as possible, isn’t this disproven by data now? You can’t connect tariffs to a single manufacturing job created.
I read that as “when you use them correctly”.
“Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far more effective.
The stability is needed to get businesses to invest serious money in new buildings, machines, and training, when it won’t pay off for years.
You signal ahead of time and phase them in to minimize damage done. Gives companies time to adjust their stance before the pressure is on.
You focus them on specifically the goods you want to protect, so you don’t also raise the prices of inputs to those goods more than you have to.
You’ll notice zero of those key components were present in this scheme.
Sorry, yes, I wasn’t clear. The point I wanted to make was that this tariff strategy seems to fail propelling any job creation at all. To the degree that if it wasn’t tariffs but some kind of protection money, we’d more clearly call it a strategy.
1 reply →