I worry that a ruling that backs the right of the state to coerce someone into doing something that violates their religious conscience will also have terrible consequences. A law that controls an individual’s conscience violates a core liberal idea. It smacks of authoritarianism and of a contempt for religious faith. It feels downright anti-American to me.
There is always retaliation for trade barriers, regardless of what other governments do. That’s because the most fundamental principle of trade theory is that trade involves . . . trade. If we buy less from them, they will buy less from us. Always. Yes, it’s that simple. China is not giving us all these goods, we must pay for them with exports. If you think there is some sort of “deficit” then you have left something out.
Foreign individuals always “retaliate” when their home country exports less.
(Scott’s blog post is excellent, although – as I’ll explain in a follow-up post – I wish that he and others would stop describing trade deficits as reflecting a “saving/investment imbalance.”)
Andrew Wilford is correct : “tariffs are by their very nature cronyism — they are a way for the government to favor the economic interests of certain industries or businesses over the interests of other industries and American consumers.”