Cooler Heads

Take a little time and chill.

People may have noticed that I just backed out of the discussions last week to let the heat dissipate that was generated about the tariff situation because I know - as does everyone really - whatever Trump proposes is rarely the final form of anything, it is always an opening ask, and from that he eventually gets to an agreement - or he walks away.

When he came down the Gilded Escalator in 2015, I immediately disliked him - not for his personality but for his baggage - is body count of ex-wives and flashy women was pretty high and while he always seemed to come out on top in business, his business history was mercurial. At that time, the lefties loved him, thinking he was one of them. I was in the Ted Cruz camp at the time and honestly, I figured Trump would be a big disaster.

But what I knew was wrong.

It didn’t take too long to understand that he ran as a Republican because he was truly about making America great again when Democrats weren’t - and he was focused on making decisions based on that rather than political party orthodoxy. I learned to wait for a few days, a week, maybe even months to see how things would play out because I learned that – like in my business experience – nothing ever proceeds exactly along a project plan or timeline and sometimes you must give things time to mature. Like battle plans, your enemy and the environment always get a say.

That is also how I approached the tariff situation, and even though I still don’t know how it will end, I know Trump has a goal in mind and whatever it is, he is convinced it is best he can get for America, or he won’t do it.

I got trashed by many anti-tariff free marketeers for my trouble.

My problem was never with them personally because I truly do believe in totally free markets – even with the potential ethical, moral, social and sometimes even economic downsides – and I have written about some of them.

The first thing I learned in a logic class in high school was that when you begin with a false premise, everything that flows from that premise is also false.

My problem was with their premise and the arguments that flow from them – that even in a global market where it is a problem for the US to treat the global market as if it was a free market when it is not. I get that major free market economic theorists of history argue that doing so is a net positive for the world.

But when one of our leading trade partners (who is also an enemy) cheats, uses trans-shipping and other manipulations to get around tariffs and regulations and steals intellectual property, I believe I am justified to hold the position that free market arguments are strawmen when the global market isn't free.

I believe my position is justified and aligns with a practical critique of free market theory when applied to a flawed global system. Classical economists have argued free trade benefits all under idealized conditions—mutual openness, fair competition, and respect for property rights - but when major players like China engage in state subsidies, intellectual property theft, forced tech transfers, and trans-shipping to dodge tariffs, those conditions don’t exist.

These Hayek/Freidman quoting shade tree economists forget that Adam Smith himself warned against naive unilateral free trade, advocating for reciprocity and protection against predatory practices. David Ricardo’s comparative advantage assumes static technology and honest actors, not dynamic theft of innovation. In 2023, U.S. trade deficits with China hit $279 billion, with estimates suggesting IP theft costs $225-600 billion annually. Trans-shipping through countries like Vietnam masks true origins, undermining tariffs meant to level the playing field.

Free market arguments can feel like strawmen because they often sidestep these distortions, assuming a purity that’s absent. Critics might counter that open markets still drive growth - U.S. GDP benefits from global supply chains - but my skepticism holds when “free” trade disproportionately rewards cheaters. I do believe that until all the players drop all barriers, strategic tariffs, reciprocal policies, or regional trade blocs could better address realities than dogmatic free market ideals.

Yes, free market ideas work in free markets – and free markets are the most desirable of all possibilities - but to try to apply free market principles to markets that are not free is simple insanity.