International trade is a delicate thing. Trade, generally, is a delicate thing; in fact, when you come right down to it, all commerce, and economics generally, is delicate, and it is a wonder that the current position among political philosophers is that the economies of nations must be left alone, only steered with minute adjustments by those in charge of interest rates and the money supply. From the point of view of rational socialists---people who take a more mechanical point of view of economics, and I believe I should count myself among them---this is just asking for trouble. They believe in controlled economies, where the government controls production more directly. They've said this for decades; it was just pure luck that the number of idiots who stumbled upon ideas to enrich themselves at the cost of the economy were few, until the junk mortgage debacle of 2006-2007, and now Trump.
One wonders whether the gambles that caused mortgage-gate were the results of ignorance and carelessness/stupidity, or sheer disregard for economic principles, principles in the sense of standards to which one holds oneself, out of consideration for the needs of society. I tend to think it was ignorance, but one never knows. Every once in a while, a child is born, who grows up to be an adult who's willing to throw the world under a bus, just to enrich him- or herself.
This brings us to tariffs. Just this morning, the newspapers report that the administration has imposed tariffs on imports from South America, throwing various national economies off balance, and tariffs have been imposed against French imports, which have, or could, result in tariffs against certain luxury goods that are sold in high volume during the holiday season, including French champagne. Now, I don't think I have ever drunk French champagne, certainly not knowingly. I don't hobnob with the class of people who would splurge on the stuff, but if these tariffs throw the business of French wine producers (including champagne-producers) off-balance, then ultimately it is poor workers who suffer. Most of my readers will look at the problem from the point of view of consumers; yes, our prices will rise, and the prospect of rising prices for luxury goods is alarming. Trump himself will be unhappy, because his extended family is almost certain to be wanting champagne for the holiday season. (But he would probably bill it to the White House, just as he bills his numerous golf vacations, which is very un-American. Evidently, he and his entire entourage stay at Trump properties, which, in turn, raise their prices to profit from the stay. I believe this practice is called price-gouging, but is not exactly illegal.) But the workers in the fields, in the warehouses, the wait staff in restaurants, it is they who will suffer, and we must keep that in mind.
Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that tariffs must not be changed heedlessly. (The word I want is not heedlessly, but I can't think of a better word at the moment. Gratuitously? Capriciously? Arbitrarily?) Because the consequences of a tariff do cascade in such long chains of implication, the world markets are not equipped to respond to a rapier-thrust of a punitive tariff, and they will never be. These punitive tariffs are the actions of a cruel man who loses his temper, because the consequences are to punish those who are not near the decision-making center. The chains of blame will not generally follow the chain of cause-and-effect, and quite innocent people will be blamed for the ensuing problems. (Trump, if he himself were to have to suffer through such a situation, would most likely blame the wrong actor.)
Is international trade a good thing? Initially, they provided the affluent with inexpensive luxury goods made by poor workers in underdeveloped countries. But now, food and fuel and clothing have settled into flows on such vast scales, that when this flow is disrupted, people will starve, and be cold, and parents will be unable to provide the silly little things that kids expect, even if they're not the expensive electronic toys that American kids appreciate, but the little Tinker Toys that Third World kids probably play with. The America First viewpoint is not something that many Americans themselves will be comfortable adopting.
In some quarters in the US, in some mega-churches, the rhetoric that is used is probably that Americans have been mistreated by foreigners, e.g. Chinese, for so long, that it is probably no more than simple justice that they should suffer, for a change. But this sort of retaliatory thinking has never been Christian thinking, or rather should not be.
Well, this brings us to the fact that a businessman, one who is just a businessman without any experience in public service, is entirely unsuited to be the head of a nation. Among all such individuals, we seem to have selected the most ill-tempered, the most ignorant, the most suspicious, the least diplomatic, the most unread, the most unprincipled businessman to be our president! To be honest, it isn't his fault; the blame must be distributed among all the Republican rank and file, who have been made to believe that they have been wronged by the liberals and Democrats, by unscrupulous Republican demagogues. It is unfortunate that American voters can be so easily manipulated by domestic demagogues, and foreign meddlers; but the world population at large has been revealed to be tragically susceptible to propaganda. Propaganda, Marketing---what's the difference?
It's interesting that the Democrats, now that they have committed to keeping big money out of politics, have to drum up support among millions of ordinary people, whom they are cudgeling into making thousands of small donations into their campaign coffers. So many families are targeted for piles of junk mail, ironically paid for by this very process of begging for contributions to various campaigns! Even those of us who are determined to overturn the campaign finance decision of the Supreme Court are doubtless thinking that it is almost worth allowing dark money in politics, if it lessens the onslaught of political junk-mail to which we're subjected, particularly if we've responded to requests for money!
Political contributions that are not secret are tabulated and published by interested news sources, so we know, for instance, from where Elizabeth Warren's financial support came, before she chose not to accept money from big donors. Unfortunately, vast numbers of voters of both parties have got out of the habit of reading this information for themselves. Instead, they depend on TV Talking Heads to filter this data on their behalf, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Talking Heads have their own agendas, and their filtering is often not a benign service they offer.
I have drifted far afield from the problems of tariffs, I'm afraid. I'm going to alter the title of this post to reflect the chaos that is this post.
Archimedes
No comments:
Post a Comment