Donald Trump and the Tariff Sham
Why the Right Questions About Trump’s Tariffs Still Aren’t Being Asked
In no time at all, Donald Trump’s tariffs completely upended what had been a relatively peaceful, cooperative, and prosperous global trade environment.
For decades, global commerce followed tariff rates agreed to by the U.S. and 122 other nations during the '80s and '90s. That stability crumbled overnight. Global markets reacted to Trump’s sweeping tariffs with outrage and threats of retaliation. Wall Street went into freefall. In just two days, the Dow plunged nearly 4,000 points—down 9%. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 each dropped close to 6%. Over $6 trillion in market value vanished. The 60% of Americans with retirement or investment accounts saw losses up to 20%. Betting markets now say there’s better than a 50% chance of a recession this year.
Consider the tariffs of the last unpleasantness:
A Federal Reserve study found that Trump’s tariffs during his first term cost the average U.S. household $1,277 per year.
A Moody’s Analytics report estimated that those tariffs erased 300,000 U.S. jobs by 2019, mainly due to rising input costs for businesses.
The Tax Foundation calculated that Trump’s tariffs were effectively a $80 billion tax hike on American consumers and businesses.
But despite those numbers from his first term and the turmoil barely three months into his second term, Trump remains steadfast in his tariff strategy. In a series of emphatic posts on Truth Social, he insisted that his policies "WILL NEVER CHANGE" and predicted substantial economic benefits, urging investors to view the situation as an opportunity.
Where, in fantasyland?
And yet, most of the economic commentary so far—however well-intentioned or well-sourced—seems to miss something. They talk around Trump’s arguments, not through them. Leaning on data and projections without always connecting the dots in a way that people feel. Let’s explore that: not with another spreadsheet, but with a little sideways logic and a few common-sense questions.
If We Were Being Ripped Off, Why Did the Economy Boom?
Trump claims that other countries have exploited the tariff system and "ripped off'' the United States for years, causing America’s once-mighty manufacturing base to shrink. “Looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered,” he said in the Rose Garden the other day.
Can I just ask? How can the U.S. have been ripped off if our economy has thrived for most of the last 40 years?
For decades, global trade has operated under a relatively stable tariff system, largely shaped by agreements that reflected a post-war consensus on free trade and economic interdependence. That framework didn't just survive the decades—it thrived. Our economy grew steadily for nearly 40 years under those agreements, with very few exceptions.
Yet to hear Trump tell it, the last 40 years were nonstop highway robbery, with foreign countries ransacking our economy while we just stood there holding the door open. If that were true, you’d think we’d be in ruins by now. But we’re not.
Lemme ask you something, Donald. If the U.S. was getting ripped off under those trade deals, how did the GDP nearly double from 1993 to 2016? Can you explain that? From 1997 to 2018, manufacturing output actually grew by 40%. Technological innovation boomed, and consumer access to goods expanded like never before. We weren’t being looted—we were making money. Weren’t you?
Seems to me the economy has done pretty well over the long haul under those “plundering” tariffs.
Bottom line: Trump is old. He thinks old. His narrative is built on a warped nostalgia for a past that can’t—and shouldn’t—be replicated. And worse, his approach to trade and manufacturing represents the larger problem with his leadership: a reliance on spectacle over substance, grievance over strategy.
It Wasn’t Tariffs That Killed Manufacturing
Trump blames those foreign tariffs for the decline of the U.S. manufacturing base.
That’s crap. Tariffs didn’t gut the nation’s manufacturing base. Globalization and labor costs did. Why pay an American worker $25 an hour when you can pay a Chinese worker $25 a week? It’s called outsourcing. And now that wages in China are rising, guess what manufacturers did? They moved their operations to countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Malaysia. Why? Was it because of tariffs? No, it was because the labor was cheaper. Labor is a company’s biggest expense, and they’d rather pay less than more.
It sure made American consumers happy. Cheaper labor costs overseas meant cheaper products here in the States. Americans talk a good game when they say “Buy American,” but that’s hardly true. They buy what’s less expensive. Always have.
Here in Sacramento where I live and did talk radio, there’s a touristy riverfront section full of little shops selling all kinds of curios and knickknacks. Every July 4th, one of these shops would put out two batches of American flags: one made in the U.S.A.—clearly marked, proudly displayed—and another batch, cheaper, made in China. Guess which one sold out first? Every single time. No contest. What does that tell you? American shoppers aren’t patriot-driven; they’re price-driven.
By the way, y’know those MAGA hats? Guess where they’re made. That’s right. China.
Reciprocal Tariffs Sound Fair—But They’re Dumb
One of the most intellectually shallow components of Trump’s tariff argument is the demand for reciprocal rates. If China charges 10%, we should, too. If the EU charges 15%, we slap on 15% in return. On paper, that sounds fair, but in reality, it’s simplistic and stupid. If a rich country like ours imposes a 10% tariff on a poor country’s goods, and the poor country retaliates with the same 10% tariff, the impact isn’t equal. A 10% tariff on American goods might barely affect a U.S. company, but a 10% tariff on goods from Bangladesh could devastate its economy, which heavily relies on garment exports to the U.S.
Trade isn't a playground game—it’s a complex system built around enormous disparities in wealth, development, and production capacity. The notion of one-size-fits-all reciprocity ignores global economic realities and reeks of lazy, retaliatory policymaking.
Oh, and the tariff on imports from Bangladesh isn’t 10%. It’s 37%.
Even If Manufacturing Comes Back—The Jobs Don’t
Trump makes it sound like tariffs will lead to a boom in U.S. manufacturing, that companies will return to the U.S. in droves and be able to set up their factories in a matter of months. This is another fairy tale.
The exodus of American manufacturing happened over a span of decades. Supply chains were rerouted, facilities were shuttered, and workforce expertise was lost. Building that infrastructure back isn’t just expensive—it’s slow.
Even if tariffs somehow forced companies to move back to the U.S., here’s another reality check: those jobs aren’t coming back in the numbers people think.
U.S. manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 at 19.5 million jobs—today, it’s about 12.5 million despite rising output.
A Ball State University study estimated that 88% of those job losses were due to automation, not offshoring. Or tariffs.
This ain’t 1955. Factories today don’t need thousands of workers standing on an assembly line. They need automation engineers, software operators, and logistics experts. The manufacturing that does return will be run by robots, not high school graduates looking for lifelong union jobs. That’s not a political opinion; that’s just where the world is headed.
So the idea that tariffs are going to magically bring back the golden age of American industry is yet another Trump fantasy. A nostalgia trip for a world that no longer exists. A black-and-white TV rerun that Trump is trying to sell as breaking news.
History, by the way, isn’t exactly on his side. Dramatic tariffs didn’t work in 1890, and they didn’t work in 1930. The McKinley Tariff sparked retaliation and higher prices; Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Great Depression, but it certainly made things worse—fueling a global trade contraction that deepened the economic pain. Now, Trump has imposed tariffs so sweeping, so sudden, and so combative that despite inheriting a strong economy, his trade war might be what finally tips it into serious trouble.
Tariffs Aren’t Strategy—They’re Spite
Let’s talk about what might really be going on.
Trump says he loves tariffs. I suspect he loves being vengeful, petty, and vindictive even more. His statements on tariffs and trade wars have often been characterized by an impulsive desire to punish perceived wrongdoers, rather than a nuanced understanding of the complex issues involved.
While the intention behind the tariffs might be to protect American industries and jobs, the reality is that the issues are multifaceted and require a more thoughtful approach—not exactly something Trump is known for.
Why should he care? Tariffs let Trump play tough guy, shake his fist at foreign leaders, and act like he’s “sticking it” to China, Europe, or whoever the villain of the week is.
Tariffs won’t bring back the past. But smart policy could actually build a better future—if we’re willing to think beyond slogans and quick-fix anger.
Trump’s tariffs aren’t a strategy. They’re a temper tantrum. And like most tantrums, everyone else had to pay for it. Any economic policy built on ego and grievance isn’t just bad economics—it’s bad leadership.