During his campaign for his 2nd term as President, Donald Trump As pledged to slap 60% tariffs on all goods coming in from China and 10% tariffs on goods imported from all other countries. Ostensibly, this is to be joined by lowering taxes. This promise of lower taxes, of course, resonates with voters. But I’m concerned that most voters don’t understand that trading taxes for tariffs isn’t a good idea. I decided to go down the rabbit hole of tariffs and tariff history to chase down an unbiased take on the issue.

Tariffs, as instruments of economic policy, have long been a double-edged sword in the arsenal of governments worldwide. Imposed as taxes on imported goods and services, tariffs aim to regulate international trade, protect burgeoning domestic industries, and generate government revenue. However, their implications reach far beyond the realms of economics, seeping into the daily lives of citizens through impacts on prices, employment, and the overall cost of living. By examining the historical applications of tariffs, their effects on individual citizens, and assessing their overall utility, a comprehensive understanding emerges of whether tariffs serve the greater good or inflict more harm than benefit.

Throughout history, tariffs have been employed to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. In the early years of the United States, the Tariff Act of 1789 was among the first significant legislations passed by Congress. By imposing tariffs on imported goods, American manufacturers were granted the breathing space needed to establish themselves, compete, and eventually thrive. This protective measure was crucial for industries that lacked the economies of scale and technological advancements of their European counterparts.

In the early 20th century, burgeoning industries in countries like Japan and Germany benefited from protectionist policies. These nations imposed tariffs to safeguard their developing sectors, allowing them to mature without being immediately overrun by established foreign enterprises. The protection of domestic industries often translated directly into job preservation and creation. When local businesses face less competition from imports, they are more likely to expand production, invest in infrastructure, and, importantly, hire more workers.

Another example is the U.S. steel industry in the early 2000s. Facing a surge of inexpensive steel imports, the industry struggled to maintain profitability and employment levels. In 2002, President George W. Bush implemented tariffs ranging from 8% to 30% on various steel products. This move was intended to provide a lifeline to the ailing industry, preserving jobs and allowing companies to restructure. For a time, it did offer some relief; steel companies reported improved financial performance, and layoffs were temporarily stemmed.

Beyond industrial protection and job preservation, tariffs have historically served as a significant source of government revenue. In the 19th century United States, before the establishment of a federal income tax in 1913, tariffs were the primary means of funding government operations. The Tariff of 1828, infamously dubbed the “Tariff of Abominations,” dramatically increased tariff rates. While controversial, the revenue generated funded critical national development projects, including infrastructure and public institutions, laying the groundwork for future economic growth.

Tariffs have also been justified on the grounds of national security. By protecting industries deemed vital, countries aim to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for essential goods. During the Korean War, the United States invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950, prioritizing domestic production of materials critical for national defense. While not a tariff per se, it reflects the strategic use of economic policy to safeguard national interests. Tariffs can serve a similar purpose, ensuring that sectors like defense, technology, and energy remain under domestic control.

Tariffs have also been used as leverage in international trade negotiations such as those used during the U.S.-China trade tensions between 2018 and 2019. The Trump administration imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods, aiming to address trade imbalances and alleged unfair practices such as intellectual property theft. The tariffs were a strategic tool to bring China to the negotiating table, resulting in the “Phase One” trade deal where China committed to purchasing more American goods and addressing certain trade issues.

The positives of tariffs tend to come with significant negatives that impact the overall economy and society. One of the most immediate impacts of tariffs is a rise in consumer prices. When tariffs are imposed on imported goods, importers often pass the additional costs onto consumers. Domestic producers, facing less competition, may also raise their prices looking to take advantage of the situation. This is exactly what happened during the U.S.-China trade war, where tariffs led to increased prices for a variety of consumer goods, from electronics to clothing. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that these tariffs cost the average American household $831 annually, eroding purchasing power and effectively lowering the standard of living, especially for low- and middle-income families.

The increased cost of goods results in a higher cost of living. As a result, families may cut back on discretionary spending, delay major purchases, and struggle to afford basic necessities. This regressive effect disproportionately affects those with less financial flexibility, widening economic inequalities.

Retaliation is another significant downside of tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, enacted during the Great Depression, raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imported goods in an attempt to protect American industries. However, it prompted immediate retaliation from other nations, leading to a sharp decline in international trade. Exports and imports both plummeted, exacerbating the economic downturn globally and deepening the hardship for millions of people worldwide.

More recently, the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs of 2018 led to retaliatory tariffs from the European Union, China, and Canada. American exporters, particularly farmers, faced steep declines in demand. Soybean farmers, for instance, saw Chinese imports drop dramatically, leading to surplus supplies and falling prices. The federal government intervened with subsidies to offset the losses, but many farmers still faced financial distress, illustrating how protective tariffs in one sector can inflict damage on another.

Tariffs can also lead to inefficient resource allocation within an economy. By sheltering domestic industries from competition, there is less incentive for those industries to innovate or improve efficiency. The U.S. automobile industry in the 1980s serves is a perfect example of this. To combat competition from Japanese automakers, the U.S. imposed voluntary export restraints on Japanese cars. While this provided temporary relief for American car manufacturers, it also delayed necessary innovations and quality improvements. The lack of competitive pressure contributed to a decline in the global competitiveness of U.S. automakers, culminating in significant challenges during the financial crisis of 2008.

Furthermore, tariffs limit consumer choice by reducing the availability of imported goods. The European Union’s banana tariffs in 1993, which favored imports from former colonies over Latin American countries, led to a decrease in the variety of bananas available to consumers and increased prices. This policy not only strained international relations but also limited options for European consumers, demonstrating how trade policies can directly affect daily life.

Tariffs can also contribute to inflation, particularly through cost-push inflation. When tariffs are imposed on imported raw materials or components, domestic producers face higher input costs. These costs are then passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for finished goods. The U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018 increased costs for industries reliant on these materials, such as automotive and construction. Companies like Ford and General Motors cited the tariffs as factors in reduced profits and increased vehicle prices, contributing to inflationary pressures.

The wage-price spiral is another mechanism by which tariffs can fuel inflation. As the cost of living rises due to higher prices, workers may demand higher wages to maintain their purchasing power. Employers, facing increased labor costs, may further raise prices, perpetuating the cycle. In the 1970s, although primarily driven by oil prices, similar dynamics occurred in the U.S., with protectionist measures contributing to an inflationary environment that proved challenging to manage.

In short, the overall impact of tariffs appears largely negative. While certain industries and their employees may benefit in the short term, the broader population often bears the brunt of higher prices and reduced economic efficiency. The increased cost of goods reduces consumer surplus and purchasing power, inordinately affecting those with lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their earnings on essentials.

While tariffs may protect jobs in targeted industries, they can lead to job losses elsewhere. Higher production costs can reduce competitiveness and demand in other sectors, and retaliatory tariffs can harm exports. Studies during the 2018-2019 U.S.-China trade tensions estimated that while some jobs were preserved in protected industries, many more were lost in sectors affected by increased costs and reduced exports.

Economic efficiency suffers as tariffs distort market signals. Resources remain tied up in protected industries rather than moving to sectors where they could be used more productively. This misallocation can stifle innovation and hinder long-term economic growth. India’s experience before its 1991 economic reforms illustrates this point. High tariffs and import restrictions aimed at self-sufficiency actually led to inefficiencies and sluggish growth. In fact, when India reduced their tariffs, it resulted in significant economic development and improved standards of living.

Inflation resulting from tariffs erodes savings and incomes, particularly harming those on fixed incomes or with limited financial means. As the general price level rises, the utility of money decreases, potentially leading to decreased investment and consumption, which can further slow economic growth.

The historical record shows that tariffs tend to inflict more harm than benefit on a country’s economy and its citizens. Higher consumer prices, inflation, inefficiencies, and potential job losses outweigh the localized advantages of protecting certain industries.

Sources