It's a very good analysis. However, it does not explain why the administration used the formula they did in establishing the rates per country and why they used a list of TLDs instead of actual countries, leading them to impose tariffs on an island inhabited only by penguins.
> First, we are getting ripped off in global trade.
So Americans buying whatever stuff they want is getting "ripped off"?
> We could tax the rich more, but the world learned in the post WW2 era that doesn't work very well.
??? The post-WW2 years were some of the most prosperous in the US, and the high tax rates did not hinder that. When Clinton raised rates in the 1990s there were predictions of 'collapse', but things continue chugging along. Inequality decreased during the post-WW2 years up to Reagan.
> So the short answer is that tariffs are a pretty efficient tax.
Not sure how accurate this is, but they're certainly regressive. And if folks have a finite income, and prices go up so each unit purchased is more expensive, then logically won't that mean fewer units will be purchased/produced? If fewer units are produced then fewer workers are needed, so layoffs may be more likely.
He's just saying it's a tax on consumption. Is that a good thing?
Importantly he's ignoring all the second order effects of disrupting international supply chains.
And the mitigating factor he notes, that it makes the dollar appreciate, is empirically not correct, the opposite is happening; a lot of trade is denominated in USD anyway.
It's a very good analysis. However, it does not explain why the administration used the formula they did in establishing the rates per country and why they used a list of TLDs instead of actual countries, leading them to impose tariffs on an island inhabited only by penguins.