Tariffs

When considering the utility of tariffs, it’s useful to keep in mind that foreign trade has very little to do with economics and very much to do with foreign policy. Tariffs, within that framework, can be either good or bad, although as with any tools used in any conflict, they won’t come without cost.

Tariffs imposed solely to protect domestic industry are strictly protectionist, and they result in a less efficient economy with higher costs for domestic consumers. However they might seem justified at their outset—to give a nascent industry (not a nascent company) a chance to get established, for instance—they don’t get canceled once the need for the protection is gone. After that, protectionist tariffs just become a drag on the domestic economy. A canonical example of this is the LBJ-era chicken tax on German light pickup trucks, still in place to the point that we import no German light pickups at all.

On the other hand, tariffs to influence foreign nations to change their ways are matters of foreign policy more than they are of protection, for all that their impact is economic. Such tariffs impose the same domestic costs as protectionist tariffs, but the long-term gain, if they’re done carefully, will outweigh those short-term costs—just as is the case with any set of tools used in other sorts of conflicts.

This is the case, for instance, when a foreign nation government subsidizes its own output to gain an advantage in an otherwise free market international trade environment. It’s especially the case when those subsidies effectively close off that nation’s own domestic market to nations that would otherwise compete in the subsidizing nation’s domestic market with their own exports into it.

This is especially the case when the foreign nation is an enemy nation using its subsidies as its own foreign policy tool to dominate our economy with a view to…influencing…our own international—and domestic—actions.

That brings me to the People’s Republic of China in particular.

[The PRC] is competing with advanced economies in cars, computer chips, and complex machinery—higher-value industries that are viewed as more central to technological leadership.

And

Beijing…plowing money into factories, especially for semiconductors, aerospace, cars, and renewable-energy equipment, and selling the resulting surplus abroad.

That money is cheap, state-directed loans, and from those subsidies, PRC companies are glutting foreign markets.

To be sure, the PRC is rationalizing this—as are many non-PRC economists—as a need to revive its domestic economy, one that, at 5.2% GDP growth year-on-year, is outgrowing our own. It does seem that the PRC economy is slowing, but it’s slowing from a very high growth rate to a high growth rate. The outcome remains one of potential dominance of our economy, especially in national security-critical technologies and energy production. This is coupled with the PRC’s nakedly acquisitive moves in the South China Sea and to a growing extent in the East China Sea, and with its increasingly overt and threatening behavior toward the Republic of China.

That brings me to tariffs as a foreign policy tool.

We should be answering the PRC’s behavior with tariffs of our own, and we should be working to get our friends and allies to apply tariffs, also. To be sure, they will be unlikely to go along with us, but they certainly won’t if we don’t make the effort to persuade.

Such tariffs ordinarily would only be high enough to offset the subsidy advantage the PRC is looking to achieve and return those markets to free competition. However, the PRC’s overall behavior makes these tariffs important foreign policy tools rather than merely protectionist. The tariffs to be imposed should be designed to strongly influence the PRC’s overall international behavior, especially in its current, apparently shrinking, economic position.

The tariffs we impose should begin at least twice the value of the PRC subsidies, and increase—rapidly, don’t give time for the PRC to adjust—from there until the PRC’s international behavior has been suitably altered.

Hamas in a Post-War Gaza Governing Body?

Among the ideas being kicked around by some Middle East nations is this:

One plan for postwar Gaza being formulated by five Arab states could see the Islamist Hamas movement being folded into the widely secular Palestine Liberation Organization, ending the yearslong split between Palestinian factions.

And this, regarding any sort of role for Hamas:

Some senior members of Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority, are still seeking reconciliation with Hamas….

No. Even the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (the PLO fronts for the Palestinian Authority internationally) Number Two, Hussein Al-Sheikh, is opposed to Hamas. He’s right.

Hamas is no Islamist movement, no matter how hard the news personalities who wrote the article at the link try to soft-pedal the gang. Hamas is a gang of terrorist monsters, nothing else. If Hamas survives in any form, but most especially if it becomes a part of a reconstituted Gaza governing authority, Israel will never know peace.

The terrorist organization must be utterly destroyed. It began this existential war against Israel last October. It must lose its war under those terms.

Full stop.

Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.

Oops, he said it again. Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to deploy his newly developed nuclear-armed antisatellite weapon. Biden’s words were sent secretively through his NSA Jake Sullivan and his CIA Director William Burns among others.

Tellingly, Biden only spoke to Putin—even then only through surrogates—after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R, OH) exposed the Russian weapon a week ago.

What’s the or else, you might ask. What will Biden do if Putin goes ahead with his deployment? It seems the paper pussy cat in our White House has no consequences in mind, only his words of Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.

Even were Putin to say he agreed to not deploy his nuclear weapon in space, how would us ordinary Americans know whether he did or not? This is the same Biden administration, after all, that tried to hide a PRC spy balloon from us until a Montana citizen spotted it and exposed it. Putin’s space-based weapon system will be much harder for us citizens to spot.

This is Why…

…Israel can’t have nice things, things like peace and security within their own nation, under a Joe Biden regime.

Three Palestinian gunmen killed one person and wounded eight more on Thursday when they opened fire at motorists near an Israeli checkpoint in the West Bank.

These particular Palestinians aren’t Hamas terrorists? There would be far fewer Palestinian terrorists operating in the West Bank if there were no Hamas to support them or to egg them on.

Hamas praised the attack, according to Reuters, calling it a “natural response” to the ongoing war….

Yet Biden is demanding that Israel let up on Hamas, let the terrorist organization survive to perpetrate ever more October 7s in Israel.

In Which Biden Extends His Betrayal of Israel

The Biden administration is putting before the UN Security Council an alternative proposal that demands Israel agree a cease fire as soon as practicable and not engage its Rafah ground offensive until, functionally, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden personally approves. Biden’s “alternative” pushes for

a temporary cease-fire in Gaza and states Israel’s planned, major ground offensive into the southern Gaza city of Rafah “should not proceed under current circumstances.”

No alternative proposal needs to be submitted to the UN Security Council. The US vetoed the proposal put up by Algeria, and that’s all it needs to do, other than then sitting down, shutting up, and staying out of Israel’s way.

The only circumstances under which Biden presently would approve Israel’s move into Rafah to root out and destroy the Hamas terrorist organization holed up there is if Israel were to guarantee no civilians would be harmed in the making of that move. This is an impossible guarantee, and Biden knows that full well.

Agreeing any sort of cease fire at this point would be Israel letting Hamas continue to exist to carry out the thousand October 7s that a Hamas mucky-muck has already publicly promised. The only time when a cease fire would become practicable is when there are no more Hamas terrorists left at which to fire. Biden knows this full well, also.

Joe Biden’s anti-Israel perfidy is abhorrent, and all of us Americans need to remember this in November.