The Experts Bet Against Trump and Lost

The economic consequences of trade protectionism take place over multiple years, even decades. Like printing more paper money, trade tariffs feel good at first and give the perception of prosperity. The economic consequences of trade protectionism take longer to manifest themselves.

@#1 - So the US should continue getting their pockets picked by the rest of the world regarding trade - why?

Agree W/ OP

They are NOT experts, it is very clear.

all of the soros/msm "experts" in ANY field are Global Communists.. out for the destruction of America and Free Men.. all have one thing in common.. the appropriation of OUR wealth for themselves

#1 obviously doesn't understand the meaning of "reciprocal tariffs." Thank God for Trump!

When the U.S. ran trade surpluses with most of the world after World War II until 1970, was it picking their pockets? Or was it selling more things than it was buying from other countries because it was better at producing things the world wanted at more competitive prices? Another perspective: From 1800 to 1870, the U.S. ran trade deficits for every year except three. Were our pockets being picked then? If so, we should thank the pick pockets because the U.S. economy grew at an astonishing rate during those decades---faster, indeed, than more recent high growth periods. If this all results in freer trade, so much the better. But a tariff is just a tax in a cocktail dress. It may look good at first, but you can't tax your way to prosperity.

There have been tariffs all along. It is just that they were being paid on our exports.

The straw man article is focused on the efficacy of Trump's economic machinations vs those of so-called economic "experts;" however, I believe the real issue at hand is our Constitution's Article I (Legislative Branch), Section 8 (Enumerated Powers), Clause 1 (General Welfare), which is unambiguously clear: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." There is no similar language in Article II (Executive Branch) regarding tax and spend powers assigned to the president. In fact the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution is a bedrock foundational element of our system of government. As an example, Congress can write no law, even if signed by a sitting president, that even situationally gives Congress the power to assume Commander in Chief duties and powers, as Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, unambiguously assigns to the president. The Commander in Chief role reflects the need for decisive leadership in times of conflict while ensuring accountability to the legislative branch. I'm simply questioning why an Article I enumerated power is OK to be assumed by a president, even if a democrat Congress passed such an act, during the tough economic times of the Great Depression, signed into law by a democrat president. Exigent economic circumstances do not nullify the Constitution, opening a Pandoras box of unintended consequences down the road. Semantically,' Impost' is generally used for taxes or duties on imported goods, while 'Tariff' can refer to taxes or duties on both imported and exported goods. If it is OK to ignore the Constitution's enumerated power language, what else in the Constitution is it OK to ignore?

Re #9 to answer the question posed, it was ok because that was a Democrat president, now it is not ok because it a Republican president.

Of course tariffs are a tax, but the problem is that up until Trump took office, WE were the (only) ones paying the vast majority of the "taxes." Trump is using tariffs as a weapon to level the playing field.

Re: #10 - Good answer to the question posed and I don't disagree but that brings up another question or two. Why does no one seem to question any president's constitutional power, regardless of political party, 'to Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,' an enumerated Power clearly vested solely within the Legislative Branch (Article 1)? Would those who support Trump acting on presumed constitutionally delegated authority remain OK with a progressive president (e.g., AOC, Crockett, or Mayor Pete) calling the shots on tariffs, or any taxation-related issue, like taxing handguns out of existence, when democrats regain the WH? My concern is not anti-Trump, nor specific to him but having taken an oath to support the Constitution 7 times, I made an effort, while working the streets as a cop, through eight years of grad school (my conservative worldview was unpopular there, too), to learn and understand the founding document of our country and its framework for governance. Much of the Constitution does not require a lot of background information given its clarity and plain language, including tax-related power and authority. I did note that a prevailing Constitutional theory throughout much of our nation's history, the non-delegation doctrine, holds that one branch of government must not authorize another branch or entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself.

LOL, multiple years or decades, from now Americans will still be prospering from the TRILLIONS of dollars being invested by companies, foreign and domestic, thanks to President Trump. The TRILLIONS happened because President Trump offered new deals based on a new trade policy that demanded actual FAIR trade. Not trade deals drawn up be career dopes who never built a successful business, or bribed, corrupt politicians. Even here we see the insight of academics who also pontificate instead of building a business. Crying about the immediate susses of the carrot and stick of tariffs, makes one wonder what that motivation is about, other than looking for attention,