[dcsommer]

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.

[Willingham]

I too am interested in learning more about the other side of the debate.

"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

[nonethewiser]

I think an interesting angle to this discussion is the fact that before the "temporary" income taxes (in 1913), tariffs were the primary source of tax revenue in the United States. There are lots of modern economists in favor of consumption taxes over income taxes. And in a climate where people are up in arms about billionaires skirting income taxes, you'd think it might be a popular idea to tax all the money they spend.

[sctb]

Yanis Varoufakis has been writing about this with a mostly neutral, inquisitive tone. Recently:

https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterpl...

https://unherd.com/2025/04/will-liberation-day-transform-the...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Good links, though I would not call that a "mostly neutral, inquisitive tone". Varoufakis knows that the outcome of Trump's imagined/proposed tariffs cannot be known at this point, and so he explores a couple of the possible results.

[milesvp]

I don't know about any credible economist currently making positive predictions (marginal revolution might be a good place to keep your finger on the pulse), but I did see a paper a few years ago that showed protectionist tariffs in britain several hundred years ago had a strong correlation to current day prevalance/strength of current industries. Which is to say, that industries with higher tariffs had a stronger pressence today.

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.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The idea is to encourage "at home" investment because the consumer-facing cost of production inside the tariff border will be less, and thus the products will sell better and thus ... capitalism.

This is such a childish, simplistic, naive view of both capitalism and material production in 2025 that it barely deserves a mention.

[bryanlarsen]

AFAICT a lot of studies and economists predict macro-level benefits to the US economy for tariffs, but they also predict that the costs will outweigh the benefits.

For example, this analysis of the term 1 tariffs show 1,000 jobs gained and up to 75,000 jobs lost.

https://econofact.org/steel-tariffs-and-u-s-jobs-revisited

[tim333]

Peter Navarro says it's going to be good.

>“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...

[nonethewiser]

I too have found the discourse around tariffs lacking. This is a common and blatant logical fallacy I see:

- 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.

[pcthrowaway]

I think this is only the case if there aren't replacements available from other countries.

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.

[BenFranklin100]

Just about any undergraduate textbook will discuss tariffs and why they are nearly universal regarded as poor policy. See Samuelson for instance. The online discourse is poor because the vast majority of people, even those who are educated, have never cracked open a 1st year Econ textbook.

[lakhim]

Its not a fallacy but game theory playing out - known as beggar thy neighbour policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour

[dragonwriter]

War is bad. It is correct to respond to aggression initiating war with defensive war.

Trade wars are like regular wars, in that respect.

[tialaramex]

My understanding is that in principle you could use this to cause onshoring, but you want to target the tariffs narrowly and you need everybody to believe that they're long term.

Trump's plan doesn't do the former and no US President could achieve the second.