Tariffs can only do so much

Tariffs in America have been used to accomplish specific goals throughout history. Until the Civil War, tariffs were a revenue generator for the government. After the Civil War, they were used to protect U.S. industries and during the Great Depression, tariffs evolved as a negotiating tool between nations, especially after World War II.

In the post-war years, tariffs built stronger trade relations between nations.  Reciprocity rather than protectionism or revenue was the guiding principle behind our trade negotiations with other countries and economic regions. That idea still holds sway under certain circumstances, but tariffs have become an offensive policy tool as well.

I remain convinced that tariffs are simply another tax that corporations and consumers pay to finance the policy goals of the government. Many may believe that tariffs are worth the price if it means more jobs for Americans but that has not been the case. The overall loss of jobs because of tariffs far outweighs the gains in tariff-protected industries, especially in a situation where retaliatory tariffs are levied on the U.S.  

Tariffs in today's world are being used by both political parties to accomplish an even greater spectrum of goals than simply job protection. Under the former administration, tariffs were both a weapon to help revive the domestic manufacturing sector as well as to reduce American dependence on China in a variety of economic sectors.

Since then, under President Biden, the goals of tariffs have been broadened further to include national security, and self-sufficiency, and to support our efforts in the green energy transition.

His approach is better, he claims, because it is targeted and selective. It also involves convincing allies to join him to coordinate tariffs on Chinese goods.  He argues his tariffs on foreign electric vehicles and solar panels allow our U.S. producers to gain a foothold in this area. The restrictions on semiconductor imports are both an attempt to build up the country's self-sufficiency in an area that is important to both military defense and increase made-in-America manufacturing in areas such as artificial intelligence. He has also restricted what U.S. industries can sell to China, especially in the technology sector.

 Former President Trump has doubled down on his first-term tariffs. He has advanced ideas that would include a new 60% tariff on all Chinese imports, plus a 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from around the world. He has also reached back into America's past when tariffs were revenue generators. His idea is to use tariff revenue to replace the income tax.

I do applaud him for a novel idea. However, it would require a huge increase in tariffs to accomplish such a feat. To put this into perspective, when tariffs were the main source of government revenues, federal spending was about 2% of GDP. Today that number is 23%.  Total individual income generates more than $2.2 trillion in federal revenues while total import revenues are less than $100 billion. The required increase in tariffs would stifle trade and likely precipitate a worldwide recession.

I also suspect that Trump may be using the threat of higher across-the-board tariffs to exact concessions from both China as well as the rest of the world. He has done it before and could do it again and our trading partners know it.

In any case, all these tariff efforts by both parties are playing well with American voters whether Republican, Democrat, or Independents. It appears that few care that we are already paying $230 billion in tariff-related price increases. A further 60% tariff on Chinese goods would increase prices by another $230 billion.

On an individual level, The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculates if Trump carried through on his promises the average middle-income family would pay $1,700 a year in higher prices on top of the $1,000 per annum they are already paying.

I don't think Preside Biden's tariff schemes are any better despite his selective approach. However, what I think isn't important. It is up to an informed electorate to decide if tariffs are the way to go.

Bill Schmick is a founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires.  Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners, Inc. (OPI).  None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice.  Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or e-mail him at billiams1948@gmail.com. Investments in securities are not insured, protected or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal.