[tfandango]

Also, if fixing trade imbalances is the purpose of these tariffs, that brings into question the constitutionality of this. I know nothing matters anymore, but how quickly he forgets to say "fentanyl" when justifying these. Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.

[Volundr]

> Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.

You can sort of count me among this number. Not this wild tarrifs everyone strat, but I've long thought we should have tarrifs on goods from countries like China that are happy to exploit their workers to steal market share. 54% doesn't seem crazy to me. The thing is to actually encourage investment they'd need to a) phase in over time to give companies a chance to react, and b) be something more permanent than an executive order.

If it was the legislature putting in place something more targeted and gradual I'd probably find myself arguing for the Republican position on something for the first time in a long time.

[amalcon]

This is also where I am. I think trade barriers are a tool we've abandoned unnecessarily, but in order to be reasonable there need to be specific requirements for their use:

1) The barrier needs to be imposed and removed under specific, transparent criteria that are under the control of the party you are negotiating with. Specifically what I have in mind are that the barrier would apply to industries that don't meet specific environmental and human rights standards, but my reasonableness criteria extends to anything that is under the control of such an industry or its regulators.

2) The initial implementation must be telegraphed years in advance, and there must be some sort of assurance that it won't be removed on a whim. In a system like the U.S., this means it cannot be an executive decision, and must come from Congress.

3) Barriers must be phased in over time. Don't go from zero to 30% at once.

4) There needs to be a coherent theory of how one might source the thing we're taxing without paying the tax. Otherwise it doesn't accomplish very much.

The current policy violates all four of my conditions. Which doesn't matter a ton -- there is no good reason for anyone in power to listen to me -- but that's just how I'm thinking about it.

[tfandango]

It is saying something that Biden did not roll back some of Trump 45's tariffs (maybe related to chips?) on China when he took over in 2020. I agree with you; some thoughtful strategic tariffs could have produced good things.