To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.
- Edmund Burke
Trump tariff war set to ramp up
Trump’s Trade Policies: A Reckoning of Economic Realities
On April 2nd, former U.S. President Donald Trump is set to fulfill his long-standing promise of imposing sweeping tariffs on major trade partners, potentially including Switzerland.
While the exact details of these tariffs remain unclear, Trump has boldly proclaimed this move as a "Liberation Day" for America.
He believes tariffs will strengthen the U.S. economy and rectify so-called trade injustices. But how much truth is there to Trump’s assertions?
And where does his reasoning falter?
This article examines six key claims Trump has made regarding tariffs and trade.
"Tariffs will make America rich again."
Trump argues that tariffs generate substantial government revenue, ultimately enriching the country.
Historically, tariffs did contribute significantly to U.S. revenue—before the introduction of the income tax in 1913, they accounted for up to 90% of federal income.
However, today, tariffs represent a mere 2% of U.S. revenue, amounting to $80 billion in the last fiscal year.
The fundamental issue with tariffs is who actually pays them.
Trump insists that foreign nations foot the bill.
In reality, it is importers—primarily American businesses—that bear the burden, as tariffs function as a tax on imported goods.
The added cost is often passed down the supply chain, affecting domestic consumers.
In some cases, foreign exporters may lower their prices to remain competitive, absorbing part of the cost.
However, the overall effect remains the same: increased prices for American consumers, reduced purchasing power, and distorted market dynamics.
Over time, tariffs lead to higher costs, rising interest rates, and reduced consumer spending—factors that ultimately diminish, rather than enhance, national wealth.
"Our trade deficits are exploding like never before."
There is no disputing that the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit, meaning it imports more than it exports.
This deficit is particularly pronounced in goods—ranging from automobiles and furniture to crude oil and microchips.
However, in services such as software licensing, Hollywood entertainment, and Netflix subscriptions, the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus.
The largest trade deficits are concentrated among a few key trading partners:
China ($263 billion in 2024),
Mexico ($179 billion),
and the European Union ($161 billion).
Even Switzerland accounts for a $16 billion deficit.
In total, the U.S. trade deficit reached $918 billion in 2024.
While these figures may seem enormous, the U.S. economy itself is massive. Relative to GDP, the deficit was around 3.1% in 2024—a significant but not unprecedented figure.
"Trade deficits are destroying America’s economic future."
Trump views trade deficits as a sign of weakness, echoing a mercantilist ideology that glorifies exports and vilifies imports.
However, most economists disagree. A trade deficit can also be seen as a sign of economic strength, allowing Americans to consume more than their domestic production alone would permit.
Trade imbalances primarily result from capital flows. The U.S. attracts significantly more foreign investment than it invests abroad. This influx of foreign capital is driven by multiple factors:
The U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s leading reserve currency.
A relatively young and growing population, unlike Europe’s aging demographics.
Historically high U.S. government borrowing, much of which is financed by foreign investors.
Reducing the trade deficit would require structural shifts: increased national savings, reduced government deficits, and decreased consumer reliance on foreign goods.
Trump’s proposed solution—tariffs—fails to address these underlying economic realities.
"The U.S. trade deficit is Joe Biden’s fault!"
Contrary to Trump’s claims, the trade deficit is not a recent phenomenon tied to Joe Biden’s presidency.
It has persisted for decades, with roots tracing back to the 1970s. Several historical developments contributed to its growth:
The U.S.’s heavy reliance on imported oil before the fracking boom of the 2010s.
The dollar’s rise as a global reserve currency, leading foreign central banks to purchase massive amounts of U.S. debt.
The acceleration of globalization in the 1990s, including the 1994 NAFTA agreement and China’s market liberalization.
China’s rise as the world’s manufacturing hub has played an especially significant role.
In 1990, the U.S. imported $15 billion in goods from China; by 2024, that figure had soared to $439 billion.
"For decades, China has ripped off the U.S. like no other."
Trump’s anti-China rhetoric is not entirely unfounded.
The economic integration of China into global trade has led to job losses in the U.S., particularly in industries facing direct competition from Chinese imports.
A well-documented study by economist David Dorn highlights the "China shock," demonstrating how factory closures devastated certain U.S. regions.
However, Trump and his supporters omit two critical facts:
Many industrial jobs would have disappeared regardless due to technological advancements and automation.
American consumers have significantly benefited from China’s cheap goods, enjoying increased purchasing power and lower inflation. Studies suggest that, without globalization, the real incomes of lower-income American households would be considerably lower.
"Tariffs will create jobs like never before."
Can America’s manufacturing sector be revived through tariffs?
Trump believes so. His goal is to force foreign companies to relocate production to the U.S. through trade barriers. However, there are several flaws in this strategy:
Trump cannot compel businesses to build factories in the U.S.
Even if companies do relocate, such transitions take years.
Policy unpredictability under Trump discourages long-term investment.
Evidence from Trump’s earlier tariffs (2018-2019) suggests they failed to create jobs.
Studies found that in regions where tariffs aimed to protect industries, employment remained stagnant.
Meanwhile, retaliatory tariffs from other nations—targeting American agricultural exports—caused job losses in affected areas.
Politically, however, tariffs have proven effective for Trump. Voters in protected industries rewarded Republicans at the polls, while those hurt by foreign retaliation did not significantly punish the party.
The Inevitable Trade-Offs
Tariffs may offer short-term political benefits, but they carry long-term economic costs. While they can provide temporary relief to certain domestic industries, they ultimately lead to:
Higher consumer prices
Decreased purchasing power
Increased economic inefficiencies
Strained international relations
Economic history shows that protectionism rarely leads to sustained prosperity.
If Trump reintroduces broad tariffs, the real question is not whether America will "win" the trade war but whether the economic toll will outweigh any perceived victories.
In the long run, tariffs primarily increase costs, raise interest rates, and suppress consumption—making a nation poorer, not richer.
Sincerely,
Adaptation-Guide
ADAPT OR DIE!
WE ARE READY! ARE YOU?
