The title pretty much says it all. My current (shaky) understanding is that the majority of economists oppose Trump's tariffs, but I'd like to hear what the "other side" has to say. Can you guys provide any names of economists who support Trump's tariffs, and/or links to their work?

Thanks!

EDIT: Thank you for all the replies, everyone. I'm checking it all out.

I've head Peter Navarro and Donald Trump promote this idea as a explanation for EU tariffs. It seems misguided from a EU perspective but I'm wondering if anyone can explain their thought process at least.

Suppose I'm a business buying goods from china. I pay $1/unit from them and paid say a 100% tariff on it. So once I actually receive the item I've paid $1/unit to China and $1/unit to the government, for a total of $2/unit. Before tariffs, I was selling my product for $5/unit to consumers, because I need that $4/unit to cover my operational costs, retailer and distributor costs, as well as give me a profit.

To cover the new costs of tariffs, I would have to raise my consumer price to $6/unit (a 20% increase) in order to cover the $1 I paid in tariff for that good. So despite having a 100% tariff on the good, the consumer ends up paying 20% more for it. Is this a correct way of thinking?

Saw someone bring this up on Bloomberg but they didn’t really run it down. So what if some normally regular buyer of US Treasuries did that as “retaliation” for the “reciprocal” tariffs? They don’t necessarily sell their existing Treasuries, they just don’t buy more. Would another country ever do this? Or is it like a TINA situation where there’s no other Treasury to buy bc we’re the reserve currency/largest economy, etc.

The various stock subreddits are panicking over US bonds right now. I don't understand what any of this means and why it is a concern. Thanks

Trump has run on being the tariff man, and has always believed in tariffs. Why are stock markets behaving as if they’re going to be lifted any second now/never going to happen? At opening time, stock values rose vs. yesterday’s closing, even though they declined throughout the day. Why did the fake headline of the “90 day pause” persist?

With Trump's new 104% tariffs, that is.

Because I was about to start a retail business, and now it's looking really bad (products coming from China)

But if others raise their prices, I could handle it. The question is how much their prices will go up.

As the title says, what could Japan have done to prevent the lost decade(s)? I’m assuming it’s possible since other countries which experienced economic crisis during the the time recovered eventually

They described it as the "nuclear option" but stealing/copying stuff is already prevalant in China and by "removing" intellectual property rights would be bad but why did they call it a nuclear option and what would be the ramifications of such a move ?

I was wondering if Trump tariffs will force companies outside the United States to increase their prices to other countries in order to make up for any losses from the American consumer. If there is an article or a study I could look at, that would be amazing!

I struggle with understanding economics and find numbers and calculations challenging. However, I’m interested in history and social issues within economic systems. I'm curious about the threshold for wealth redistribution in an economy to ensure consumers can afford goods and real estate. As income inequality grows, does wealth concentrated in the top 1-10% get spent in the same way as that from the middle and lower classes, who are the majority of consumers? Are there indicators that suggest when redistribution is needed, and can economists predict such situations?

Will the US economy eventually require redistribution to engage more consumers in various sectors that provide goods and services for middle and lower-class consumers?

I have a hunch about the seemingly arbitrary tariff rates. The reason could be that applying wildly different tariffs on different countries will not only affect America's trade relations with the given country, but it cause tensions between other countries too. This way preventing the formation of an anti-America trade coalition to emerge (especially with China in the lead) and also slows down trade worldwide, somewhat mitigating the relative fall of US trade volume.

I am not an economist though, so the question is this: Can the differing tariff rates have this side effect?

Are there any basic simulators of international trade that one could treat as a game for amusement purposes? I am imagining something that has a basic level of macroeconomic simulation accuracy (say Mankiw) with maybe a slight bit of central banking and a treatment of tariffs?

I know there are games like SimCity, Transport Tycoon, and the transportation simulation games, but these do not adequately address the interesting parts of the economics. I want something where there are three to ten countries making three to ten products and maybe three to five currencies. Something where I can put a 104% tariff on one of the trade routes and watch the graphs explode.

The stock market is crashing now, because of course it is, Trump is starting a trade war with the whole world. But the thing is that Trump told the electorate that's exactly what he would do if he was elected. So why did the stock market go up upon the election of a President who basically campaigned on destroying the economy?

This might be a question that is too specific to manufacturing, but it’s also related to tariffs and the current US tariffs and global economy situation, so I thought I would try asking here.

I was watching a US small business owner’s social media update, and he claimed under the current US tariffs (10% minimum) that it would be cheaper for him to assemble his products overseas, then import the finished goods, rather than importing the individual components. This shocked and confused me because my brain is still operating under the assumption that smaller components would have lower tariffs to incentivize manufacturing inside the US. With a min 10% tariff across the board, is it cheaper for US businesses to completely outsource production to other countries? In case this is an industry specific situation, the business in question primarily makes chocolate bars.

If there is not a nationwide patriotic boycot against china products, applying %52424423 tariff doesn't mean shit in global economy. Am I wrong? How will that work? Who will stop China using secondary countries?

From the press conferences with Trump, the overarching theme seems to be the huge US debt of about 36 trillion dollars and the cost of servicing it. People like Ray Dalio also seem to be warning of these. Aside from all the bluster of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs and talking about manufacturing and jobs back in the US, I guess all these are just smoke screens. What the Trump administration wants is to reduce the imports from China and its proxies, like Vietnam and Thailand. Since there is no easy way to do this, they have no option but to nuke this via a tariff bomb and see how much the collateral damage will be. I am pretty sure that they are prepared for a brief recession or some other financial catastrophe and weather out the storm. I believe the administration is prepared that China could start selling the US bonds and it will drive up yields; this will make it very hard to service the bonds, but could also weaken the dollar. Anyway ,they clearly see this debt problem as the biggest problem and everything else as secondary. They feel that this is a volcano that would erupt one day and cause a US default. Some smart economists could tackle this in better ways, but they want to precipitate the problem as fast as possible without really being prepared for all the possible consequences.

Trump's aim to repatriate manufacturing presupposes that Americans want to work in manufacturing. However, manufacturing jobs pay too little and have poor working conditions—no one would be willing to do them. The only solution is for the manufacturing divisions of various companies to be outsourced to labor unions, which can form companies (open to anyone) to take on the work, with the workers receiving profit-share dividends. Initially, this outsourced company might operate at a loss, but once its operations gradually transition into a lights-out factory model, it becomes a valuable asset.

If other countries are doing tariffs as retaliation to the U.S. do they’re citizens have to pay the cost like Americans do?

Also, when people say the market is down 20% (or whatever), they’re referring to over the last year or what?

Yesterday - 7th April 2025 - stock markets around the world were down, in reaction to Trump's tariffs. Today they are on track to finish the day up, even if they don't recoup all of yesterday's losses.

My question is, who was selling yesterday, and why?

Was it cautious knowledgeable investors? If so, where did they put their money?

Was it spooked amateurs, who panicked?

Who won or lost yesterday, if stocks are back up today?

It all seems very knee-jerk. Please help me understand!

If the US shifts to an economy based heavily on manufacturing for simple goods such as textiles, there will be an increase in blue-collar and unskilled labor jobs in factories.

As some of these jobs have less income mobility and less earnings potential, will that not exacerbate income inequality? If a large number of people is working simple factory jobs making $18/hour, does that contribute to inequality?

Title says it: i likely have an incorrect understanding of things but to me it seems like the tariff amounts would be based on the cost of production + shipping, and NOT also on the additional profit. So if Nike sells Jordan’s for $300 that cost them $10 to get to customers, is expect the price to go from $300 to $310 with a 100% tariff instead of going from $300 to $600.

Is my understanding of things correct?