The Economist Trashes Trump’s ‘Flat-Out Nonsense’ Tariffs in Scathing Editorial: Most ‘Unnecessary Economic Error in the Modern Era’
The Economist Trashes Trump’s ‘Flat-Out Nonsense’ Tariffs in Scathing Editorial: Most ‘Unnecessary Economic Error in the Modern Era’
The Economist on Thursday published a scathing editorial criticizing Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on virtually all of the United States' trade partners.
Almost everything Mr. Trump said this week—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded. His reading of history is upside down. He has long glorified the high-tariff, low-income-tax era of the late-19th century. In fact, the best scholarship shows that tariffs impeded the economy back then. He has now added the bizarre claim that lifting tariffs caused the Depression of the 1930s and that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were too late to rescue the situation. The reality is that tariffs made the Depression much worse, just as they will harm all economies today. It was the painstaking rounds of trade talks in the subsequent 80 years that lowered tariffs and helped increase prosperity.
On economics Mr. Trump’s assertions are flat-out nonsense. The president says tariffs are needed to close America’s trade deficit, which he sees as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. Yet as any of the president’s economists could have told him, this overall deficit arises because Americans choose to save less than their country invests—and, crucially, this long-running reality has not stopped its economy from outpacing the rest of the G7 for over three decades. There is no reason why his extra tariffs should eliminate the deficit. Insisting on balanced trade with every trading partner individually is bonkers—like suggesting that Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with each of the other 49 states, or asking a company to ensure that each of its suppliers is also a customer.
👊🇺🇸🔥🤡
Money is fungible so that we don't need perfectly balanced trade. It's a feature.
In before MAGAs are on your case wondering what mushrooms have to do with anything.
It's a shame Trump supporters won't consume anything that doesn't feed their confirmation bias.
To be fair, the economist is shit.
They cheer welfare cuts that are projected to put tens of thousands of children into poverty and complain about tiny tax increases on the rich.
The economist is the magazine of the upper class. They may be neo-liberal instead of straight up facist, but they are morally bankrupt.
The Economist's journalism is some of the best anywhere, and clearly declares its bias when it's relevant to do so. It has to be that way because its readers make investment decisions based on its coverage, like its sister paper the Financial Times.
Its opinions section, on the other hand, can be odious, and they sometimes lean towards the Tories even when the Tories have policies in direct opposition towards the Economist's declared principles. There's a direct pipeline from writing for the Economist and being selected as a Tory MP. I think that's what you're reacting to.
Having said that, I wouldn't characterize even their leader writers as neoliberal. They have robustly criticized the Chicago School's many shortcomings and have ridiculed the Austrians (the economic cult, not the nationality).
I think of them similarly to Al-Jazeera: their coverage is often good, but not in areas of interest to the Qatari rulers. The same with the Economist-- its foreign coverage can be excellent (considering their point of view) but they are too ensnared in UK politics to show the same objectivity. The quality of their US correspondents is also quite variable.
And I don't see anything in their criticism of Trump's idiocy that is incorrect, though I'd go farther and note that his probable motivation is economic sabotage of the US and its trading partners, because he is Putin's stooge. There might be some Shock Doctrine smash-and-grab as a secondary goal.
It's why I canceled. They have good news reporting but they personally view countries (notably the USA) as nothing but an economic engine. They don't honestly care about the lives of the people who live there. Kind of like how they think the USA needs to cut "red tape" with DOGE but can't specify what or precisely why. But it's crickets on usable healthcare..
That's a good point, I really can't argue.
I dunno pretty sure they consume groceries
They've been told to stop talking about grocery prices.
For now
The trump regime was designed to TANK the US economy so that stocks, businesses, and industries can be bought by billionaires at rock bottom prices.
All is going according to plan.
The Economist: [Endlessly promotes fascism]
...
The Economist: What's with this fascism!??!?!
They haven't encouraged this, they've been pretty critical of trump.
They're openly capitalist and liberal.
Liberal in the British 19th-century sense: in favor of free trade abroad and rule of law at home-- the kind of political philosophy that would suit a Manchester factory owner.
The Guardian had similar origins, but has drifted slightly leftward since its founding. It's still more sympathetic to the LibDems than towards Labour, and its discomfort with socialism could be seen in their vitriolic hatred of Corbyn.
Scratch a neoliberal...
In all seriousness, capitalism is exactly why we're here right now. (That said, technocrit is an idiot with some of the dumbest takes on this site. They blanket basically everything as fascist/fascism-adjacent, and I'm not going to say The Economist promoted this, because they didn't.)
I don’t think you know what fascism is? Liberal, capitalist, sure, pro Trump? Definitely not, pro fascism? definitely not…. That’s even true for the very woolly definition of fascism as most people use it today
If it's not Mao-era China, it's fascist.
They're not pro-Trump, but the base of inequality, arrogance and hate necessary for fascism to take hold was co-produced by the Democrats. You support that and you're pro-fascism whether you like it or not.
“LiBz!11”
This will just confirm to the MAGGAots that they're doing the right thing,.if the orthodox liberal elite are agaist it theyre in the rigth track as far as they are. .concerned.
And if it all goes to shit they'll come up with conspiracy theories to help them avoid facing the reality of having made a mistake.
Hang on, more of an unnecessary economic error than Liz Truss?! That's impressive "hold my beer" territory
He’s the most incompetent, demented rapist to hold the office. Many people are saying it. People are calling him Mr. Brexit. Bigly.
It’s almost like he doesn’t know what the fuck he is doing. Almost like someone is telling him what to do. Someone who greatly benefits from this sort of chaos on our former allies.
If only they had left a clue, like being passed over for the tariffs. Who could it be?
Getting closer...
Error makes it sound like an honest mistake instead of an intentional, economic attack on the nation. Sure, Trump will probably sue for such language but on what grounds? The US government is not a business so how could it be slandered or libeled?
The trump regime was designed to TANK the US economy so that stocks, businesses, and industries can be bought by billionaires at rock bottom prices.
All is going according to plan.
"But don't I make it look easy, don't I make it look good? Eat it, peasants!"
A real shame he wasn’t aborted.
