(Roughly) Daily

This post, written on July 29, is dropping on August 1, the deadline set by President Trump for the imposition of “reciprocal tariffs.” Here, in spirit of a search for a silver lining, Paul Kedrosky with an argument that, while the traiffs are both prima facie and fundamentally a bad idea, they could lead to a good place…

Tariffs are dumb. They distort trade, favor inefficient local producers, cause trading partners to retaliate, and make people worse off than a world without them. On these points, economists almost universally agree.

But tariffs are not useless. They may even be sort of, almost, kinda, a … good idea in these very weird U.S. circumstances.

Hear me out, because three things are going on, so it can get messy:

1. The U.S. is, as the line goes, an insurance company with an army, which has straitjacketed its budget, which I’ve written about previously.
2. The U.S. hates taxes, and most voters are innumerate, so it finds silly ways to hide them.
3. Tariffs are a kind of horrible, second-best solution to the above problems.

The first two points are mostly self-explanatory. Entitlements plus defence are now around 70% of the U.S. budget—see also, insurance company with an army—leaving little room to do much other than cut, unless you find new revenue. But new revenue is hard, because Americans hate income taxes, and have long resisted carbon taxes or a value-added tax (VAT). They aren’t coping well with what I’ve called life under 2%.

Enter tariffs. They raise money because consumers buy things. We can argue about whether the producing companies pay the tariff (they mostly don’t), or whether consumers pay it via higher prices (they mostly do), but the effect is the same: consumers buying things increases government revenue. That is tariff income.

So far, so … suboptimal. Because tariffs aren’t a good tool for this. I will come to why they aren’t very good in a few paragraphs, but they distort, create weird incentives, invite retaliation, etc.

A much better tool is a value-added tax (VAT), a broad tax applied to consumer purchases of goods and services. Most countries have one, including all of the OECD except for the U.S.

It is generally agreed that VATs are a good idea, that they can be less distorting than income taxes. And, most importantly, if you’re a government, they produce gobs of income for countries that have them. How much income? The average nation’s VAT income is around 6% of GDP.

So, why doesn’t the U.S. have a VAT of its own? After all, the country has what are often obfuscated as significant long-term fiscal challenges. These mostly revolve around trying to run a costly modern social democracy on a low-tax system. This mathematically intractable “challenge” is made worse by a healthcare system unrivaled for all the looting intermediaries demanding to be seen instead as paragons of competition and capitalism.

There are various reasons for having no U.S. VAT, but the most important is in the name: it is a tax. And Americans hate taxes. Just ask them. The U.S. government cheerily indulges them in their hatred of taxes by cutting the taxes they can see, like income taxes, and hiding the ones they can’t, like the pre-tax corporate deductibility of healthcare premiums (costing $300b and 1.5% of GDP). This has costly & malign effects, like a 6+% structural budgetary deficit and the most screwed-up and expensive healthcare system in the world…

… The U.S. is foregoing approximately $2.8 trillion annually in potential VAT revenue at an OECD-average rate. Even at half that rate—because, America!—a U.S. VAT might produce, all else equal, around $1.4 trillion a year.

To put that in a kind of context, the current U.S. budget deficit is around $1.8-trillion a year. A VAT set at even half of OECD average levels would nearly zero out the U.S. deficit. (And, of course, reforming U.S. healthcare by eliminating premium pre-tax deductibility, instituting universal Medicare Lite, and requiring catastrophe insurance would flip the U.S. to surpluses, but I digress.)

Let’s now turn to tariffs. Like a VAT, they are broad consumption taxes, just not applied defensibly. They are applied only to imports, not to everything bought and sold in the country. This makes no sense, unless you think tariffs aren’t taxes (they are), and you think tariffed companies pay them (they don’t). So, Americans.

But tariffs are a species of VAT, albeit a poorly designed one. A universal tariff on imported goods—say, at 15%—would raise VAT-lite revenues. Based on recent data, U.S. annual imports are around $4 trillion. Applying a uniform 15% tariff to manufactured goods, which is 80-ish% of that. might yield roughly $300-$400 billion annually. While this is a fraction of the revenue of an actual VAT, it is real money. The choice then is not between a perfect VAT and an imperfect tariff, but between an imperfect tariff and continued reliance on deficit financing or distortionary taxes on labor and capital income.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you might rightly protest. This is just a bad solution. Sure, but it is, in practical terms, a “second-best solution”, even if it is also perhaps the second-worst.

We should want more second-best solutions, economics tells us, if the alternative is doing nothing. There is a framework, with which I won’t bore you, that says it’s okay to do something less than perfect, if by doing so you counteract some of the problems preventing you from doing the best thing.

In this case, American politics prevents an actual VAT from happening, so perhaps tariffs aren’t so bad, if the alternative real distortion is structural deficits. To that way of thinking, distorting trade via a uniform tariff (a second distortion) may increase overall welfare relative to the status quo (deficits), despite being shitty trade policy.

And, if we want to spitball here, tariffs could even lay the groundwork politically and psychologically for a future transition to an actual big-boy VAT. Citizens and businesses might recognize that consumption taxation you can see is better than consumption taxation that you can’t. A future administration could leverage dissatisfaction with tariffs to propose replacing them with a more economically efficient and lower-rate VAT. Politically, the VAT would then become not a “new” tax but rather a tax cut (in rate terms only) eliminating import tariffs.

The debate over tariffs versus VATs is about the current structural problem in U.S. budget, a refusal to recognize life under 2%. Economically ideal policies frequently fail politically, leaving policymakers with second-best solutions. Tariffs, undeniably flawed and distortionary, are a usefully ugly compromise. They generate meaningful revenue, shift some production domestically, and potentially serve as a stepping-stone toward a VAT.

[Lest we got our hope up too high… Kedrosky is addressing the revenue half of the equation. But where and how that money is spent (whether raised by tariffs or a VAT) obviously matters absolutely. It’s clear from the examples he cites along the way, that Kedrosky would see that income most usefully applied to the social infrastructure that, as he observes, we have (to put it politely) neglected. Sadly, the “Big Beautiful Bill” and the rhetoric that surrounds it suggest that the Trump administration has other, darker plans, beefing up Defense and Homeland Security and creating a “sovereign wealth fund“… all of which could all-too-easily (and obviously) go horribly wrong, creating more damage in the form of social infrastructure destruction, and souring the public on the very idea of Federal action. Still, as Kedrosky concludes…]

Hey, a boy can dream, can’t he?…

Tariffs are a bad idea.. but could they lead somewhere good? “Tariffs are Dumb Enough to (Almost) Work,” from @paulkedrosky.com‬.

* Henry George

###

As we search for silver linings, we might recall that it was on this date in 2023, that Justice Deartment Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled the case alleging that then-former President Donald Trump broke several laws in his attempts to overturn the 2020 election…

On June 8, 2023, a grand jury in the Southern Florida U.S. District Court indicted Trump on 37 felony counts, including charges of willful retention of national security material, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, relating to his removal and retention of presidential materials from the White House after his presidency ended. Thirty-one of the counts fell under the Espionage Act.

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury for the District of Columbia U.S. District Court issued a four-count indictment of Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States under Title 18 of the United States Code, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, and conspiracy against rights under the Enforcement Act of 1870 for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both indictments. Trials were scheduled but never held.

On July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents prosecution against Donald Trump, siding with the former president’s argument that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.

On November 25, 2024, Smith announced that he was seeking to drop all charges against Donald Trump in the aftermath of Trump’s victory in the 2024 United States presidential election. The Justice Department, by policy, does not prosecute sitting presidents of the United States.

Smith submitted his final report to the Justice Department on January 7, 2025, and resigned three days later…

… [In fact] The special counsel prepared a two-volume final report: the first volume about the election obstruction case, and the second volume about the classified documents case.

Trump’s lawyers were allowed to review Smith’s final report from January 3–6, 2025 in a room where they could not use their electronic devices. They objected to the report’s release. On January 6, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira (who could still face criminal charges in the classified documents case asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop its release to avoid influencing their case, and the next day, Judge Aileen Cannon blocked the report’s release until three days after the 11th Circuit decided. Later in the evening on January 7, the special counsel provided both volumes to the attorney general, and the next day, the Department of Justice said it would release the first volume publicly and may provide a redacted version of the second volume for a limited review by select members of Congress. On January 9, the 11th Circuit allowed the release of the first volume, and on January 13, Cannon said she would likewise allow it, given that her own authority was limited to the classified documents case. On January 14, the 137-page first volume was released.

– source

The 137-page report that was released is here.

The matter did not, of course, rest there. In 2024, in Trump v. United States, filed in response to the Smith indictments, the Supreme Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president’s “official acts” – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate. (In practice, as we’ve seen in 2025, his immunity seems to extend even to things that Congress is supposed to regulate.)

source