Economy

How was your Liberation Month? It’s been almost 30 days since Donald Trump stood in the Rose Garden of the White House and announced a shocking set of massive tariffs on the world. The event caused huge convulsions in the economic universe: trillions were wiped off the stock market and, under huge pressure, Trump did agree to a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs. After that he exempted electrical goods, though his standard 10 percent remains, and the heads of most financial analysts are still spinning trying to figure out what it all means. Yet for all the angst and the apoplexy, yesterday the S&P 500 index closed just 1 percent down from where it was at the beginning of the month.

With Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announcing that a trade deal between the US and India could be imminent, it once again raises the possibility that Trump’s intended outcome is not the imposition of high, permanent tariffs – but that the measures announced on “Liberation Day” were really just shock therapy aimed at the ultimate liberalization of trade. It is significant that India was one of the countries which were originally put down for some of the higher tariffs: 26 percent was going to be the blanket rate on imports from India. South Korea, another country with which trade deal negotiations seem to be in an advanced state, was going to be subject to 25 percent tariffs.

The following is a transcript of a speech delivered yesterday by the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In the final months of World War Two, Western leaders convened the greatest economic minds of their generation. Their task? To build a new financial system.  At a quiet resort high up in the mountains of New Hampshire, they laid the foundation for Pax Americana.  The architects of Bretton Woods recognized that a global economy required global coordination. To encourage that coordination, they created the IMF and the World Bank.   These twin institutions were born after a period of intense geopolitical and economic volatility.

What are we to make of an America in which David Brooks, the mild-mannered moderate of the New York Times opinion pages, calls for a “comprehensive national civic uprising” to fight back against the tyranny of President Donald Trump? It’s one in which the traditional thinking about how the Democratic party can wield power has been crushed to dust. It’s one in which voters, disillusioned by repeat defeats to Trump, have felt their hopelessness turn to rage. Moderates, such as Kamala Harris, are not channeling that fury.

Another Tax Day has come and gone. Here I sit, all broken-hearted. The tax-industrial complex has once again swallowed up thousands of dollars that used to be mine. But this year, I found myself legitimately wondering: could this be the last time I ever have to pay my taxes?  One of the major pillars of President Trump’s economic platform is the abolition of income tax for all Americans who make less than $150,000 a year. This sounds like a fantasy, an empty chicken-in-every-pot promise, like a student council candidate winking after saying, “If you elect me, I’ll make sure we have soda in the drinking fountains.” But if Trump 2.0 has shown anything this year, it’s a willingness to set into motion seemingly impossible plans.

They never learn, the libs. Back in 2016, they provided hours of entertainment assuring themselves that Donald Trump would “never be president” (“take it to the bank,” said Nancy Pelosi, who in another galaxy, long, long ago was speaker of the House). Patriotic citizens, eager to instruct the public about the dialectic of hubris and nemesis, stitched together many joyful compilations of Hollywood celebrities, ditto-head news readers and Democratic politicians intoning that party line.  Then, after the impossible mutated into the inevitable and Trump was elected, the narrative shifted to “the walls are closing in on Donald Trump.” If it wasn’t Russia, Russia, Russia it was Stormy Daniels, putatively shady business deals or putative efforts at insurrection.

“THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” President Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social account yesterday morning. With trillions of dollars wiped off stock market value since his tariff announcements last week, this appeared to be an attempt to manufacture a silver lining. It also happened to be a literal statement. Within a few hours, the stock market was surging as Trump announced a 90-day pause on the higher “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries, while hiking the tariff on Chinese goods to 125 percent. Was this careless? Intentional? Insider trading? According to the White House, it had been the strategy all along. The President told reporters it had been “the biggest day in financial history.” Speaking to his aides beforehand, Trump noted the market was rallying.

“Don’t buy Tesla! Don’t buy Tesla!” protesters were chanting in front of the brand’s showroom in my neighborhood in the northwest of Austin, Texas, at 10:30 on a Saturday morning. The anti-Tesla resistance – “nonviolence division” – was making a stand in the city where the company has its headquarters. Somewhere between 100 and 200 people waved US flags and carried signs. “Elon: You’re Fired,” read one of them. “Deport Nazi Musk,” said another. “When you ride with Tesla, you ride with Hitler,” one proclaimed. I saw as many swastikas as I’d expect to see at an actual Nazi rally. But these were resistance swastikas, I was told, so that made them acceptable. The protesters circled the Tesla dealership but didn’t actually enter company property.

There is a vacant lot at the edge of downtown Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, my hometown. Three years ago, a handsome, sturdy brick factory building stood in that lot, albeit most of the windows were broken, as it had been abandoned for years. After it closed, the building became a favorite hangout for ne’er-do-wells, whose act of arson forced its recent demolition. For decades, though, the clothing factory employed thousands of people and made downtown hum, as workers crowded the restaurants and took care of errands on their lunchbreaks. They – along with the hundreds of people employed by a cigar plant on the outskirts of town – also bought houses and rented properties here and supported locally owned pharmacies, barbers, hardware stores, grocery stores, and the hospital.

“I-Pencil,” the fable-like essay by the economist Leonard E. Reed, remains one of the best introductions to the free market. It shows the ways in which the mass production of even simple things – like the humble pencil – involves the work of numerous people, most of whom do not know each other and who are all motivated at some level by self-interest. Above all, Reed shows that this extremely complicated process occurs without someone planning it from the top-down. This is, in short, the classic argument for market liberalism. But Reed’s essay also illustrates the follies of central planning or imagining that humans can somehow live an entirely self-sufficient existence.

On what he called “Liberation Day,” President Trump announced a new tariff schedule. While the markets had been up in anticipation, they are down sharply, with the Dow dropping 2,200 points, perhaps surprised by the extent of them. Basically, Trump has laid tariffs equal to about half what other countries charge on US exports, inviting them to lower theirs in exchange for reciprocity. What the final result will be is anyone’s guess, for the Trump tariffs are chips in a high-stakes game of international poker. They have already had an effect. Canada has promised retaliatory tariffs while Israel has dropped all tariffs on US goods. A tariff is a tax laid on goods passing through a port.

So the big question is: will it work? Will Trump’s protectionist policies, announced with some fanfare at a Rose Garden event at the White House yesterday, increase American prosperity? Or will they harm the economy?  Opinion on that matter is sharply divided. In one corner we have the free traders. They are wringing their hands and warning about higher prices, disruption of international trade and a trade war no one can win.  In the other corner are – what to call them? Most are not “anti-free traders” or “economic protectionists” (though some are).  Let’s call them “fair traders.” They like the idea of free trade – in theory. What they don’t like is the ethic of “free trade for thee but not for me.

The classical defense of free trade, the one found in Econ 101 textbooks and Ricardo’s comparative advantage model, goes something like this: countries should specialize in what they can produce most efficiently, export the surplus and import the rest. Trade allows global output to increase, everyone gets richer and any government interference – like tariffs or subsidies – just gums up the works. But that’s not the world we live in. David Ricardo, the early 19th-century British economist who developed the theory of comparative advantage, illustrated it with a now-famous example: even though Portugal could produce both wine and cloth more efficiently than England, both countries would benefit if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth, then traded.

The President can’t stop talking about his favorite word – tariffs – although this week his comments are having a new effect. Rather than plummeting, the stock market is showing signs of life – climbing by more than 1 percent – on the news that Donald Trump’s plans for “reciprocal” tariff seemed to have been scaled back significantly.  For weeks the President has been suggesting that come April 2, trade retribution would really kick in: any country that has an “unfair” trading partnership with the United States (Trump was even thinking of extending this to taxes like VAT) would see an equal import tariff imposed on the country.