Steve G writes: “First, my own guess is that Trump went after China not because they were weak but because they were the biggest part of the problem. Second, I also think there is a tradeoff in terms of the cost of tariffs. Pure free-traders, including WSC in his early days, based their arguments on the fact that tariffs raised the price of goods to the people and thus were a sort of tax on them. I think that’s still true, but what has changed is that in return for lower prices on consumer goods we “exported” our manufacturing jobs to places like China. So while the general public benefitted from lower prices, a segment of society payed a heavy price and lost all hope of ever making a good living. In addition, the wages of industrial workers in other countries have risen and this lowers the loss to business of using more expensive American labor. Overall, it can be argued that the tariffs and the return of manufacturing jobs may be a net benefit even at the cost of increased prices on some consumer goods.”

(1) True, but Dr. Stelzer’s point was that if you’re street smart you pick vulnerable targets, one at a time.​ He went after China only after their economy started slowing. (2) I think Dr. Stelzer makes this point in his comment, as did Adam Smith himself. Perfect answer to my critic, who was saying I hadn’t read my Adam Smith.​

​Thanks for reading.​