A simplified explanation of why Trump’s tariffs won’t work

Let’s review a very basic model of tariffs and see why they generally don’t work.

I’ve put together a basic, simplified graph to explain how tariffs work, and why Trump’s approach is going to harm consumers.

A supply and demand curve. Tariffs are introduced, shifting the supply curve up, reducing output and revenue.

In the graph, P is the price of a product, and Q is the quantity people are willing to pay at a given price. Curve D represents consumers’ willingness to buy a product. At a given price, consumers are willing to buy a certain amount of a product. The higher the price, the lower the quantity of product that will be sold.

Curve S represents a price at which suppliers are willing to sell a product. The lower the price, the less willing a supplier is willing to sell, and the lower the quantity. Before tariffs, market pricing is at point (p1,q1).

Now the US introduces a tariff. This represents an upward shift in the supply curve from S1 to S2. That upsets the equilibrium and causes consumers to by fewer products at the higher price. So a new price and quantity (p2,q2) is set.

What has happened? The consumer has paid a higher price, the foreign producer has sold fewer products and taken in less revenue.

So what is Trump’s point? He’s hoping that by increasing consumer costs for imports, a domestic supplier will enter the market in the US that offers the same product at a price below p2. But it will not be so low as price p1 unless something else changes. Otherwise the product would not have been imported in the first place. That can happen for many reasons, such as the foreign producer delivering better quality product or lower cost, just to name two.

That means that no matter what happens, consumers in America will always be penalized for tariffs with higher prices than they otherwise would have paid. What’s more, because consumers would always end up paying higher prices for the same product, they’ll have less money to buy other things. And that leads to a further shrinkage of the economy.

Worse, those tariffs could work in reverse. Imagine a market in which raw materials such as lumber are imported to the US from Canada, it is turned into furniture, and shipped back to Canada. In this case, the tariffs are actually making US exports less competitive, encouraging Canadians to make their own furniture. The same concept would apply for tariffs on any raw material such as steel. In addition, there are some products that the US cannot produce such as the rare metals found in most computers.

Another aspect that the curve above doesn’t really show is startup cost. The first unit of any product is always the most expensive, because it required a production facility to be built. But if Trump’s policies get reversed, or he reverses them himself, then that startup cost turns into a loss. If you were a producer, would you trust that tariffs would remain in place?

Putting aside those startup costs, there’s another problem: the US unemployment rate is relatively low. Put another way, we wouldn’t have enough people to operate the factories Trump wants to see built. How to add people to the workforce? The safest way is to allow more immigration. Florida is considering another approach for their worker shortage: child labor.

Obviously there’s a lot more to this, and there are a lot of assumptions that we can review. In my view, doing so makes it clear that the economics of tariffs for America only make things worse.

Who Should Have Whose Back? Memo to the Washington Post

No, WaPo: Tech needs to have our backs.

I do not blog as much as I used to, but I found something disturbing in a Washington Post article that was asking whether Kamala Harris will have policies friendly to Silicon Valley.

I have two problems with this article:

  • It would lead the reader to think the Biden administration has had no tech policy.  That’s not true.
  • It seems to imply that the tech companies have done their part in helping society.  They have not.

Let’s start with the first.

The administration has pushed hard in an area no other has: cybersecurity. President Biden issued executive orders to improve the posture of IoT devices and software, by requiring transparency of vulnerabilities for all products sold to the federal government.  DHS, NIST, FCC, and other branches of the government have worked hard throughout the last three years to get our infrastructure on a better footing.  1990s gave us Section 230.  The 2000s gave us an Internet governance model that the Obama administration fought to retain.  The Biden administration is fighting for the safety of our infrastructure.  And that is something that all sectors of society, especially the tech industry, need, as they can’t sell products that are viewed as unsafe.

This brings me to my second point.  The question should not be whether Harris has the  Valley’s back, but whether Tech has our backs.  Social media companies have been all but mute about adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea taking advantage of offerings to harm our interests.  They’ve profited over strife and discord in a way never seen, some of which has been sown by those same countries.  At the same time, we all now heavily rely on the Internet infrastructure, as Crowdstrike painfully demonstrated.  And yet the Valley is still playing the same hand they had in the 2000s: “We got this.”

The game has changed.  The only real question is whether tech companies will accept that and work with the next administration and Congress to find new and innovative approaches that work for society.

The Israeli/Gaza War

Let there still be hope.

Everyone wants everyone to say something about what is happening in Israel and Gaza. Here in Switzerland the conversation since the attack has been All Israel All The Time.  Everyone around the world has an opinion, of course.  Here in Switzerland, the discussion is thoughtful.  You would not hear anyone defend Hamas’ murderous actions.

It’s one thing to have opinions; it’s quite another to be grieving the loss of one’s friends and/or family, and worrying about one’s children who have been called up.  My employer’s Israeli offices are somewhat emptier for that reason.

President Anwar Sadat, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and President Carter

I look up at my office wall these days and see a response from President Ford’s staff to a letter I wrote him in 1975 about Israel when I was a child. I remember writing him, suggesting that he throw both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership in a room and not let them out until they have a peace plan. Back then I knew I had the answers.

Prime Minister Itzak Rabin, Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Bill Clinton.

Over the years, there have been signs of hope. Seeing Sadat engage Israel, or the work that successive administrations undertook that led to the famous handshake you see here. Those days led to the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side.

Now I worry that this conflict will survive me and my generation, as it will have our parents.  I hope and pray that it does not outlive our children, and that they will be more imaginative than us.

You may have seen my #MusicMonday list.  Last week’s contribution was Hatikva.  The Hope survived, even as many of the children in that video did not.  The hope of peace and prosperity must survive for all. My only plea is for all parties, Israelis and Palestinians in particular, to work to preserve that hope.

Ode to Di Fi

Diane Feinstein was a force to be reckoned with, and she gave her all for San Franciscans, Californians, women, the LBGTQ community, and America.

I want to say a few words about our late Senator and my late neighbor, Diane Feinstein.

I remember when Di Fi ran for governor and lost to Pete Wilson in 1990, and how disappointed I was for her, and how excited we all were when she and Barbara Boxer were both elected to the Senate in 1992, along with Bill Clinton. We all departed some friends’ Election Night party, and piled onto Castro Street, and then the party really began; and she was there. She was always there for California and for Americans.

A common “social” event in those years in the Bay Area was a funeral for a person who died of AIDS, and Di Fi was right there for the LGBT community, as it was called back then. She was also there to defend a woman’s right to choose, and she was there to govern, as she had with San Francisco, having been the person who found Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk shot dead by Dan White. That’s where she learned that to govern, you have to find common ground with those who don’t always agree with you. It’s an important lesson that is lost on many in the House of Representatives these days.

The brutal death of her friends shaped her politics, to be sure. She was a hawk in the same vein as Sam Nunn, although they didn’t agree on social issues. She viewed encryption as a threat, and I was witness to one side of a conversation in which she lambasted one of my friends who was a policy maker at the time. She had no truck with those she thought were in the wrong. That is not to say I agreed with her on encryption- I did not. She could often be blunt, but she understood that we are all Americans, and that we had to work together for the good of the country, and that did mean crossing the aisle on occasion.

I do think she stayed at least one term too many. Some records should not be broken. If this is her biggest failing, as a long time constituent, I could easily forgive her this fault.

“Neighbor”, you ask? Yes. In 1992, Di Fi was my neighbor on the other side of Temple Emanuel. She lived on one of the wealthiest streets in San Francisco, Presidio Terrace, while I lived in a broken down flat on Arguello Blvd. We didn’t exchange calling cards back then, but I had visited her Senate office a few times.

Republicans, pick one: win at any cost or support Democracy and rule of law?

Our way of life and form of government require the sternest possible punishment for those who would attack either. Republicans need to support America, and not just winning.

The charges that have been leveled against Trump are political but not in the sense that Republicans claim. Our way of life requires that those who attain high office be severely punished when they attack our American system of democracy and justice, as Trump and his lackeys did.

Some people might say, “Well, these are just Democratic prosecutors going after a Republican they don’t like.” Let’s look at the accusations:

  • In New York, Trump stands accused of felony bank fraud for having falsified records in his attempt to cover up his affair with a porn star. He is accused of doing this to win not just any election, but a presidential election.
  • In Washington, Trump and others stand accused attempting to fraudulantly thwart the peaceful and legal transfer of power, and the prosecutors have produced overwhelming evidence, including Trump’s own words.
  • In Atlanta, Trump and others stand accused of fraudulently attempting to “find” over 11,000 votes, once again in an attempt to overturn an election.

In short, Trump attempted to steal an election. It is undeniable.

Trump’s own tactics have been to accuse others of exactly the crimes he has knowingly committed. Thus we hear the rhetoric of “Stop the Steal”, when he himself attempted to do the stealing, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates. The idea that Trump started his own social network called “Truth” demonstrates the depths of his depravity. He and truth rarely have met, and only ever to his disadvantage, as these indictments and the facts behind them demonstrate.

Trump had many co-conspirators, many of whom remain unindicted, such as the so-called “news” organizations like Fox News, who had to settle with Dominion voting for the lies they perpetuated; NewsMax, whose day is coming; and Republican office holders who disgraced themselves by violating their oaths to protect the Constitution. Many of those people have yet to be held accountable by their constituents. That in itself reflects the depths of trouble in which American democracy finds itself.

I note that not all Republicans are in disgrace. Former Governor Chris Christie stands out as the most vocal and consistent of Trump’s critics. But judging by the polls, Christie is in a small minority.

So, Republican citizens: the day of reckoning is here. Is the object simply to have your guy remain in power, no matter the lies and cheating? Will you put country before winning and before worship of this grifter and once again make America a beacon of democracy? That is what will make America great again.

It’s that simple.