Wealth, Re-industrialization, and Challenging China: Trump’s Tariff Plan

What’s happening

The Trump administration has re-ignited a global trade war with allies and adversaries alike. His moves are spooking investors and driving down the stock market amid the uncertainty surrounding the White House's objectives.

President Trump placed 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum from all countries and a 20 percent tariff on Chinese products. When the European Union threatened tariffs on Kentucky bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs, Trump responded by threatening to levy 200 percent tariffs on European alcohol.

But the world is waiting for arguably Trump’s biggest move: reciprocal tariffs, scheduled to go into effect on April 2. These will see the US place equal tariffs on any country which has tariffs on it, unless the US already tariffs them at higher (or equal) rates.

The shift to protectionism is economic whiplash from past American presidential administrations; both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush strongly pushed for massive free trade deals. Trump’s shift is happening for a multitude of reasons: the protection of US industry and wealth creation, the shift to a multipolar world order, and the rise of China.

Geopolitics 101: Members-Only

Become a member to unlock this article and gain access to our weekly, uncensored deep dive into global politics.

Try free

Reply

or to participate

Jim Harmon1 year ago

If the President hopes to keep consumer and voter support high, he needs to present his case on Tariffs to the public. He's done that a little, but he needs to concentrate on getting the word out, through presidential speeches and engaging his cabinet to do the same.

George Mattern1 year ago

Just like Reagan did--articulate your message and purposes directly to the American people, and explain WHY you are doing what you are doing, and describe the consequences for failing to do it. And don't be afraid to chide Congress for not going along with what you are doing--directly in the ears of the voting public!

Than Johnson1 year ago

Thank you for the deep dive into ‘tariff history’. My hope is that the major shift in the US position on use of tariffs from R and D previous administrations will work. Aligning foreign policy with a new economic policy should assist. My major concern is ‘absence of workforce’. We have to expand our workforce in so many areas. Technology cannot replace enough of the vacant positions. Unionization has made US products more expensive and resulted in off-shoring of the production phase. If we look at the ‘military-industrial complex’ as an example, the US can’t produce it’s military upgrades timely now,because of workforce issues, where do we find the workforce in the future as more industries come back to US as a result of good tariff policy development? Than

George Mattern1 year ago

Good question! This is going to be a long process of "righting the course" of America's ship of state (the President can slap sudden tariffs on a lot of foreign countries, but we can't just suddenly conjure up the workforce that we have slowly lost over decades of bad choices, but that we desperately need to fill the void caused by the tariffs). My question is: Will all of Trump's reforms be "too little, too late"? Will we be able to grow and train a new workforce equal to the challenges you mentioned--equal in both capability AND integrity (I mean people with a work ethic to make themselves useful and actually show up and do the job with consistency and quality)? I really don't know if there is good reason to be optimistic about that. I don't support illegal immigration at all, but we might want to consider reforming the immigration system to allow more and easier LEGAL immigration, because in my experience, there are rarely better quality workers than Spanish immigrants.

Laney B1 year ago

Communist China is our greatest enemy, hands down. How in the world have we continued putting into our mouths drugs that have been manufactured in the nation of our enemy?

George Mattern1 year ago

Politicians have SOLD US OUT for cheap, quick benefits from China (and others), with no regard for the long-term consequences! Similarly, there was NO EXCUSE for America to remain dependent on OPEC for ONE SINGLE DROP of oil, after what they did to us in the '70s. The politicians told us we should trade with China in the hopes that if we made them more prosperous, they would come around to our way of thinking--which was the stupidest thing we could possibly do! If you give a communist country more wealth and prosperity, it won't become more democratic or free-market capitalistic--IT WILL STRENGTHEN ITSELF IN ITS COMMUNISM AND USE ALL OF THAT NEWFOUND WEALTH AND POWER TO FURTHER SEEK TO DOMINATE AND SUBJUGATE THE WHOLE WROLD (which is what communism, like cancer, always seeks to do). And as soon as America enriches China enough for it to be able to dominate us economically and militarily, it will seek to DESTROY US as quickly and efficiently as possible, with no mercy whatsoever!!!!

Paul Bohac1 year ago

Born in late '40's, graduated college in 1970, bought my first house (2/3 1450 sq.ft.) in '71 paid $18,000.00. Moved and bought my 2nd house in another area of the state (3/3, 2,000 sq.ft) paid $56,000.00 in 1976. Moved again in 1983 and bought a 3rd house in a popular coastal community one block off the water (3/2 1750 sq.ft.) paid $63,000.00. Those prices are gone because the economy no longer exists for the "working man". Current housing prices reflect incomes paid to "professionals" who work in high-end service careers - doctors, lawyers, stock brokers and the like. The education system's focus on "college for all", coupled with the government's support for free trade practices reduced the need for home-grown production in favor of more imported and cheaper products from abroad. We've lost independence, replaced it with government debt and cheap consumer prices, a very poor trade-off in my opinion. Its time for a change in the dynamic.

Joel Williams1 year ago

Worldwide businesses could send products to us for cheap, while US companies had to pay (sometimes exorbitant) tariffs to sell products worldwide. Hardly free trade if you ask me.

Glenn Meyer1 year ago

A very good analysis. I am sure It’s understood, but doesn’t seem to be mentioned much by others, but is included in this article. Products made in America typically have a higher price tag, and probably not due to tariffs. All in all, it’s the right policy at the right time.

claude chase1 year ago

I recall when the push for global free trade started, they claimed it would end wars because no country would want to attack another country who's industry produced key components of items they depended upon. Well as always what sounds good to fair minded people sounds very different to underhanded people - in this case subsidizing their industries to undersell all others and destroy whole industries within other countries helped China gain the upper hand in nearly all things vital to America. This protectionist tariff policy of Trumps is the right thing to do for America's future prosperity even if it will be uncomfortable at first. We can do it, and we owe it to our children to get it done!

Stephen Winsor1 year ago

If we are to do this and make it work, we have to do it now. Waiting will not work. The Trump administration also needs to continuously message, in simple terms, what he is trying to do and the benefits for all citizens.

George Mattern1 year ago

For the most part, all "free trade" has done is weaken America and strengthen communist dictatorships and other potential adversaries. For decades, American politicians have been sacrificing this country's security and stability on the altar of quick, easy benefits. The real question in regard to Trump's return to common sense is: Will it prove to be too little, too late?

Ron Averyt1 year ago

The USA no longer has the necessary skilled and semi-skilled workforce to operate the factories that we're trying to bring back. Where is the plan to address this?

LK ERCEG1 year ago

Kindly research the term "Third World" countries, as the newer term is Underdeveloped countries, or Countries Under Development. I believe it is considered a more accurate ND hopeful term.