Have there been any studies or economists predicting macro-level benefits to the US economy with the tariffs? I'm not aware of any (much the opposite), but I'm interested if they exist.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion" --John Stuart Mill
It incidentally also reduces the social impact of a small number of extremely wealthy people, thus helping democracy.
It's probably not legal without a Constitutional amendment, but one can dream.
(*) progressive in the sense of following the principle that the impact of taxes should be roughly the same for all, not in the general political sense.
> The proposal also specifies a monthly payment made to all households based on household size. Called a "prebate," the monthly payment offsets the regressive nature of a sales tax up to the poverty level.
Of course nobody agrees [2] on how effective this would actually be:
> Sales taxes are normally considered regressive though the FairTax provides a rebate that supporters argue would create a progressive effective rate on consumption. However, the Fairtax would also eliminate the EITC and CTC, dramatically reducing this benefit.[58] Additionally the FairTax would be applied to goods that are currently not subject to sales tax. These include all food, all prescription drugs and other health care products and services (such as doctor’s visits and laboratory tests), purchases of new homes, and utility bills. These goods make up a substantial share of low income families expenses
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_effects_of_the_FairT...
https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...
https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...
All things being equal, I might expect that strategic tariffs on important sectors to be vital in maintaining them. But, given how global the economy is, and how many more non-obvious substitutions there are today, I'm not sure these protections provide as much value going forward as they did 200 years ago. Worse, is blanket tariffs are not likely to do anything in the short term but drive up local prices to match foreign import goods costs, and is likely going to be a major wealth redistribution event towards physical capital holders.
This is such a childish, simplistic, naive view of both capitalism and material production in 2025 that it barely deserves a mention.
For example, this analysis of the term 1 tariffs show 1,000 jobs gained and up to 75,000 jobs lost.
>“The message is that tariffs are tax cuts, tariffs are jobs, tariffs are national security,” Navarro told Fox News Sunday. “Tariffs are great for America. They will make America great again.” https://inews.co.uk/news/world/peter-navarro-behind-trump-ta...
- Tariffs are bad. They hurt the country enacting overall it in the long run.
- It's correct to respond to the US tariffs with tariffs in response.
Additionally, people seem to not understand that a country that exports more to the US than it imports stands to lose more when the US/that country have the same level of tariffs.
At a large scale, if global trade breaks down the United States will be comparatively (not absolutely) better off because they can support themselves (consumption, food, raw materials).
None of this is an endorsement of tariffs. I think the US is in a pretty good spot and things could get a lot worse. Tariffs absolutely will make expensive things more expensive, and it will hurt. But the discussion I've seen online has reduced itself to some sort of weird orthodoxy that doesnt even make sense.
I feel like China is going to be the biggest winner of this tariff war.
Just as an example (from Canada), we had long had a 50% tariff on Chinese EVs which helped U.S. EV manufacturers stay competitive. Now I think we're going to relax that (which IIUC was only implemented to appease our relationship with the U.S. in the first place) and cheaper Chinese EVs should start appearing on the market.
Good for Canadians, good for China. Not as good for the U.S.
A small and often overlooked one is that a Chinese hegemony would decrease the língua franca status of English.
I don't really care so much for the "lingua franca status of English" (even though it's the only language I speak fluently). While yes, this is one of Canada's main languages (not that we don't have a lot of Cantonese/Mandarin speakers too), China itself would be a good example that one can succeed without speaking the language which has the "lingua franca status"
Perhaps it's worth noting that the number of fluent Mandarin/Cantonese speakers in Canada is probably not much lower (as a percentage - ~4% in 2016 and I can imagine it's only increased since then) than the number of fluent English speakers in China (5%)
edit: 4% is actually the number of Canadians who spoke Mandarin or Cantonese as a first language in 2016 (which again, is likely higher now). The number of fluent combined Chinese language speakers is almost certainly higher then, even if just a little bit.
You have a huge unrecognized privilege in being a native English speaker.
To cling to the idea that English need continue to be the most important global economic language though, is a type of linguistic and economic supremacy I don't care to partake in.
The same logic applies in the real world. It’s not personal. It’s the most impersonal thing possible.
They could be a beneficiary if global trade doesnt go nuclear. And it probably wont. If it does they are in big trouble.
We have these claims:
- Shooting someone is absolutely bad in all scenarios
- Its correct to shoot someone if they are trying to shoot you
I agree with the second point completely. The problem is if you say that, you should go back and revise the first point, because clearly its not absolutely bad.
In the case of tariffs, once you acknowledge that reciprocal tariffs are good, you run into a problem because the US generally has lower tariffs on other countries than other countries have on it.
Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.
edit: lots of evasion from this point below
I think its poor because people see tariffs not immediately derided and they swoop in to denigrate them. Please re-read my entire comment.
Trump's plan doesn't do the former and no US President could achieve the second.