• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


The Madness of Presidential Tariffs

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
11,990
Power & Market
Phil Duffy
03/13/2025


Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is an early study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841 under the title Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions. The book was published in three volumes: “National Delusions”, “Peculiar Follies,” and “Philosophical Delusions.”

The first three chapters address economic events to include:

  • The Mississippi Scheme
  • The South Sea Bubble
  • The Tulip Mania
The remaining chapters describe mania that are essentially non-economic, including the witchcraft phenomenon. All chapters describe how crowds periodically lose their common sense.

Were Mackay alive, he would probably recognize today’s trade war and the tariffs enacted by President Trump as being nothing more than the madness of crowds. Specifically, he would note that many today believe that the United States’ economic growth has been limited because other nations have taken advantage of the United States. A deeper look at the numbers would demonstrate that claim to be nonsense.

On March 4, 2025, President Trump officially declared a tariff war by the United States against its two neighboring nations, Mexico and Canada. Predictably, both nations reciprocated, as nations around the world reciprocated to the Hawley-Smoot Tariff in 1930, signed by President Herbert Hoover. As a result of the latter act, the United States lost 67 percent of its imports and exports, causing further grief to Americans during the Great Depression. This is only one example of a failed tariff policy. United States tariff policies have been a disaster since The Tariff of Abominations (1828), the Morrill Tariff that brought on the War between the States (1861), and the McKinley Tariff (1890).

Never mind that few economists believe that tariffs can improve a nation’s economy. It is the politicians and media that speak directly to voters. The average supporter of tariffs today hears little of the disasters caused by them.

How should the situation be corrected? Economic education is the ideal solution, because the answer to tariff proposals is clear to one reading the literature of the Austrian (free market) school of economics. But the crowd’s mind is not inclined to Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson (211 pages), much less Mises’s Human Action (885 pages) where the answers to tariff proposals may be found. A faster route is necessary, and it need only effectively raise doubts now about the implications of an American president unilaterally establishing tariff levels.

The Constitution of the United States is approximately 26 pages in length, but a person has only to refer to two pages to learn which branch of the federal government has been empowered to create tariffs:

  • Article I, Section 8 - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  • Article II, Section 2 is where a president’s powers are described. The power to establish tariffs is not mentioned and thereby reserved to Congress. A president may sign a tariff bill passed by Congress, or refuse to sign it, but that is the limit of the president’s power.
For those citizens who refuse to learn their Constitution, learning the above two facts should be enough to raise doubts so that the deeper discussion of the merits/demerits of tariffs might ensue.

The media today is fixated on presenting the economic and emotional cases for and against tariffs. As a result, politicians are free to spew their propaganda and the people become roadkill. With the exception of career politicians, ultimately, most elected officials pass through the revolving door of the federal government to comfortable jobs among their friends in the private sector, often lobbying them for the special interest they then represent. Ordinary citizens are left holding the bag.

The Constitution is a remarkable document, but it still retains systemic flaws. Its structure, including the separation of powers and balance of powers principles come directly from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws, published in 1748. 236 years after forming a government under the Constitution, it should be obvious that it has not worked to protect the liberties of United States’ citizens. However, Americans need not create a new constitution. Instead, they need first to take the first steps toward sanity concerning tariffs. They merely need to insist that Congress has the power to enact tariffs, not a president.

No nation employing a representative government can thrive on economic ignorance, so warding off the immediate tariff crisis is not a longer-term solution. But that would reveal that President Trump’s tariff actions would place this nation on the road to dictatorship. Once Americans realize this, a broader audience for Economics in One Lesson may materialize.


 
Respect my authoritay to tell others what they may or may not buy, and how much they must spend!
Corporations voluntarily agree to such restrictions all the time, e.g. exclusivity deals. If this were a voluntary country (obviously it's not), is there any reason why a country and its voluntary members shouldn't be able to agree to similar exclusivity contracts?
 
Corporations voluntarily agree to such restrictions all the time, e.g. exclusivity deals. If this were a voluntary country (obviously it's not), is there any reason why a country and its voluntary members shouldn't be able to agree to similar exclusivity contracts?

Nice red herring. Of course, being. VOLUNTARYIST (or anarchist, whichever you prefer), I have no objection whatever to any voluntary agreements. But that's not what s being discussed in the op, or pretty much ANY TIME this topic comes up around here. Therefore, bringing it up in this context is irrelevant.

The bottom line is simple: either I have the absolute right to dispose of my justly acquired property in any way I see fit, or I do not. If the former, then I am free. If the latter, then I am a slave to whomever is empowered to make those choices. There’s no grey area.
 
Corporations voluntarily agree to such restrictions all the time, e.g. exclusivity deals. If this were a voluntary country (obviously it's not), is there any reason why a country and its voluntary members shouldn't be able to agree to similar exclusivity contracts?
Did you just use the "muh social contract" argument??
 
Nice red herring. Of course, being. VOLUNTARYIST (or anarchist, whichever you prefer), I have no objection whatever to any voluntary agreements. But that's not what s being discussed in the op, or pretty much ANY TIME this topic comes up around here. Therefore, bringing it up in this context is irrelevant.

The bottom line is simple: either I have the absolute right to dispose of my justly acquired property in any way I see fit, or I do not. If the former, then I am free. If the latter, then I am a slave to whomever is empowered to make those choices. There’s no grey area.

Yep you are a slave. As am I.

Imagine if the both of us lived in a real physical, concrete prison, and our warden tells us that we can choose whether or not to turn on the A/C in our prison block. If he does, he takes the costs out of everyone's very meager pay. You can say "tax is theft" all you want, but I'm still gonna vote to turn on the A/C, and my choice would be just as morally valid as anyone who voted the other direction.

My point being, "freedom" arguments are not really valid in regards to tariffs. Your problem should be with slavery itself, and not the decisions that we make as slaves.
 
Yep you are a slave. As am I.

Imagine if the both of us lived in a real physical, concrete prison, and our warden tells us that we can choose whether or not to turn on the A/C in our prison block. If he does, he takes the costs out of everyone's very meager pay. You can say "tax is theft" all you want, but I'm still gonna vote to turn on the A/C, and my choice would be just as morally valid as anyone who voted the other direction.

My point being, "freedom" arguments are not really valid in regards to tariffs. Your problem should be with slavery itself, and not the decisions that we make as slaves.

Whatever. All you’re doing is making thecsamevold “lesser of two evils” argument that got us here in the first place. You needn’t bother. You've already made it clear that when it comes to doing anything substantive to advance true liberty you cannot be counted upon. It’s a shame, but there it is.

And given the above, it’s kind of sad to see you tell me I should be opposing “slavery itself” considering that every time you make one of those lesser evil votes you’re actually supporting that very slavery.

Anyway, carry on.
 
Whatever. All you’re doing is making thecsamevold “lesser of two evils” argument that got us here in the first place.

False.

You needn’t bother. You've already made it clear that when it comes to doing anything substantive to advance true liberty you cannot be counted upon. It’s a shame, but there it is.

True. (but you're not doing anything substantial either, so ... shrug)

And given the above, it’s kind of sad to see you tell me I should be opposing “slavery itself” considering that every time you make one of those lesser evil votes you’re actually supporting that very slavery.

False, because the premise is false.

Anyway, carry on.

Sounds good.
 
False.



True. (but you're not doing anything substantial either, so ... shrug)



False, because the premise is false.



Sounds good.

1. Not at all false, but you go abd believe whatever you need to to get through the night.

2. You have no idea what I may or may not have done over the last 50 years, or what I am, in fact doing now, so… shrug.

3. Again neither the statement nor the premise are false, but again, go on and believe they are if it makes you happy.

4. Hey! We agree on something.
 
1. Not at all false, but you go abd believe whatever you need to to get through the night.

Not at all true, but you go ahead and lie to yourself.

I've never voted for a "lesser evil" and never suggested anyone should.

2. You have no idea what I may or may not have done over the last 50 years, or what I am, in fact doing now, so… shrug.

I know what you haven't done. And that's making any substantial advances to liberty.

3. Again neither the statement nor the premise are false, but again, go on and believe they are if it makes you happy.

Whatever floats your boat.

4. Hey! We agree on something.

Cheers!
 
Not at all true, but you go ahead and lie to yourself.

I've never voted for a "lesser evil" and never suggested anyone should.



I know what you haven't done. And that's making any substantial advances to liberty.



Whatever floats your boat.



Cheers!

What is this, an episode of Pee Wee’s Playhouse?

As to 1, if you’ve never voted for a lesser evil then what?, you’ve never voted? Either way, every time you come on here and lend your support to tariffs you most certainly are supporting statist bullshit and at the gery least encouraging those who DO continue to vote for my enslavement so, while you certainly have every right to argue and advocate any way you see fit, I have every right to point out the utter hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of those arguments.

As to 2, you don’t really know shit. You’re just making assumptions and in doing so are making the assumptions that will best serve to assuage your iwn conscience. Have at it.

Oh, and one more thing. Even if you’re assumptions were dead on, that doesn't in any way preclude me from justly attempting to persuade, brow beat or even shame others into standing up and doing the right thing. In fact, if your position and assumptions about everyone were true, that would be the ONLY way we had any chance of getting the right thing done at all. So even if you were right, you’d be wrong.

As for the rest, go ahead and have the last word. This conversation is boring and pointless anyway.
 
What is this, an episode of Pee Wee’s Playhouse?

As to 1, if you’ve never voted for a lesser evil then what?, you’ve never voted? Either way, every time you come on here and lend your support to tariffs you most certainly are supporting statist bullshit and at the gery least encouraging those who DO continue to vote for my enslavement so, while you certainly have every right to argue and advocate any way you see fit, I have every right to point out the utter hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of those arguments.

The moral bankruptcy is your own if you think I've ever voted, supported, or otherwise encouraged your enslavement.

I have consistently supported your every right to secede. I am probably the most vocal advocate for secession on this forum. I fully support your right - as an individual - to secede. How the fuck do you square that round peg when you try and call me a statist?

Further - I don't vote, and encourage people to not vote. So, wtf mate?


As to 2, you don’t really know shit. You’re just making assumptions and in doing so are making the assumptions that will best serve to assuage your iwn conscience. Have at it.

It's a pretty easy to assumption to make. You're implying you've made substantial advances to liberty, and it's pretty obvious you haven't, because, well, look around.

Oh, and one more thing. Even if you’re assumptions were dead on, that doesn't in any way preclude me from justly attempting to persuade, brow beat or even shame others into standing up and doing the right thing.

Sure, but what do you think I'm doing, if not the same thing?

In fact, if your position and assumptions about everyone were true, that would be the ONLY way we had any chance of getting the right thing done at all. So even if you were right, you’d be wrong.

Can you rephrase that into English.

As for the rest, go ahead and have the last word. This conversation is boring and pointless anyway.

Ok Thanks
 
The objection to tariffs relies on a fundamental assumption, a globalist one world assumption, that Nations do not exist and do not have collective interests, even collective interests in independence and liberty.

Free traders and globaleftarians reduce everyone down to atomized members of a single global community which then drags all societies down to the lowest common denominator through osmosis.
Free trade creates a single global society of serfs ruled by an international aristocracy, and libertarians will sell their birthright of liberty, which they claim to care about, for a 5% discount provided by exploiting slaves on the other side of the world.
 
More than 600 Iron Range steelworkers out of work as auto industry cuts orders because of tariffs
More than 600 Iron Range steelworkers will be out of a job as mines that supply the struggling auto industry go offline.
Cleveland-Cliffs will temporarily idle two Minnesota operations: Hibbing Taconite Co. in Hibbing and the Minorca Mine in Virginia. The Ohio-based company, North America’s largest producer of flat-rolled steel, has notified the state of the upcoming layoffs, according to a statement Thursday.
“These temporary idles are necessary to rebalance working capital needs and consume excess pellet inventory produced in 2024,” the statement said. “We remain committed to supporting our employees and communities while monitoring market conditions.”
While Cleveland-Cliffs executives say they expect President Donald Trump’s tariff plans to shift the industry in their favor, tariffs are shaking up the U.S. auto industry and could have downstream effects on American-made steel.
After a 60-day period under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 630 employees will be laid off, according to the company. The two plants produce steel pellets used in automobile manufacturing.
The Hibbing mining operation will be partly idled. About 250 workers will be laid off there; about 350 will remain on the job, according to the company.
As Trump’s nascent trade war takes hold, Minnesota taconite producers may benefit from a 25% tariff on steel. Still, analysts aren’t anticipating the import tax will boost domestic production enough to replace imported steel. U.S. steel production capacity rose just 7% after tariffs were implemented during Trump’s first term, according to a March 12 report from RBC Capital Markets.
 
The contents of the article seems inconsistent with the article title.

The mining executives quoted in the article are all pro-tariff, and the article seems to suggest that this mining company is doing lay-offs because the tariffs aren't big enough.
Not to mention all the companies moving factories here and hiring Americans to avoid the tariffs.
 
goodness paf take a short break from posting, sun. it's a long road. especially now that 95% of the "posts" you debate are AI computers, not people. you are actually training AI now via your posts (dead internet theory). your keyboard is fucked with. your pointer is fucked with.. it's all fucked with.

the key is.....and always has been.....direct interactions with people. same as it ever was. godspeed sir.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
The tariffs aren't strategic or tactical. Trump is disconnecting the USA from trade period to be fully self-sufficient. Exports won't materialize however as the rest of the world will be far too competitive and the USA will slowly become an economic backwater with technology 10 years behind everyone else.

But you will be 'soverign' as a nation if not as individuals. Because yeah the USA was such a victim before this lol.

The most annoying part is the victim mentality, and second the obfuscation. But thats because its not my economy being destroyed.

Although the standard playbook when the victimhood causes economic collapse is to blame external and inernal enemies and go on a rampage with everything dedicated to the war machine and revenge, so itsw going to suck for me too pretty soon.
 
Back
Top