![](\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2023\/08\/24\/multimedia\/24krugman-kmfj\/24krugman-kmfj-articleLarge.jpg\")
\n
![](\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2018\/04\/02\/opinion\/paul-krugman\/paul-krugman-thumbLarge.png\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
By <\/span>Paul Krugman<\/span><\/p>\n Opinion Columnist<\/p>\n James J. Jordan was a Mad man \u2014 a copywriter who devised advertising catchphrases that were annoying but memorable, including \u201cI\u2019d rather fight than switch\u201d for Tareyton cigarettes and \u201cWhen you\u2019re having more than one\u201d for Schaefer beer. In other words, he was very good at his job.<\/p>\n Now he has posthumously become a sloganeer for an actual madman, a former president who tried to overturn an election and may yet destroy U.S. democracy.<\/p>\n Given the existential threat he poses to America as we know it, Donald Trump\u2019s economic ideas aren\u2019t the first thing on most people\u2019s minds. Nonetheless, it was a bit startling to see Trump propose, as he did last week on Fox Business, a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, which he called a \u201cring around the collar\u201d of the U.S. economy.<\/p>\n Before I get to why that would be a really bad idea, I can\u2019t help noting how remarkable it was to hear Trump using that phrase. It\u2019s an article of faith among many Republicans that President Biden is doddering and senile (even though he isn\u2019t, at all). What would they be saying if Biden were promoting one of his big policy ideas with a 55-year-old advertising slogan that was meant to describe something bad? (Wisk detergent was supposed to prevent<\/em> ring around the collar.)<\/p>\n OK, on to the economic substance. A tariff would, of course, be a tax \u2014 a tax that would, whatever Trump may assert, fall on U.S. families, probably disproportionately hitting lower income households. It would also push consumers into buying higher cost, lower quality goods, because that\u2019s what protectionism does, making America as a whole poorer.<\/p>\n But focusing on the economic costs of Trump\u2019s ring around the collar misses the main reasons his idea is so bad.<\/p>\n One dirty little secret of international economics is that while tariffs create inefficiency, according to standard models these efficiency costs are fairly modest unless tariff rates are very high. Even in the late 19th century, when America had average tariffs of 30 percent to 40 percent, the best estimates suggest that the efficiency costs were less than 1 percent of gross domestic product. The direct economic effects of Trump\u2019s tariff idea would probably be significantly smaller.<\/p>\n But the geopolitical effects of such a tariff would be disastrous.<\/p>\n The modern world economy is built around a system of rules governing and limiting the ability of national governments to impose trade restrictions at will \u2014 a system, by the way, that was largely created by the United States, building on the \u201creciprocal trade agreements\u201d policy that began under F.D.R.<\/p>\n This system has multiple virtues. It\u2019s crucial for smaller, poorer economies that need assured access to world markets to prosper, in some cases even to survive. (Think of Bangladesh, which would probably be starving without the ability to export clothing.) But the system is valuable for big, rich countries, too, in large part because it protects us from the demands of our own special interests. In my own limited experience in government, I saw multiple self-destructive protectionist ideas blocked by officials who informed political appointees that they would be a violation of U.S. trade agreements.<\/p>\n If America were to implement Trump\u2019s proposal for a unilateral, across-the-board tariff, it would in effect be seceding from the international order it did so much to create. The result would be a global wave not so much of retaliation \u2014 although that too \u2014 as of emulation, a free-for-all of tariffs imposed to cater to various interest groups. This would be bad for the world economy, but even more important, it would foster suspicion and hostility among nations that should be allies.<\/p>\n Now, you may say that you don\u2019t care, that America is a great power with the right to do whatever it thinks serves its own interests. But here\u2019s the thing: Trump\u2019s idea isn\u2019t just extreme, it\u2019s mindless.<\/p>\n Consider the contrast with the current administration. Biden\u2019s people aren\u2019t free-trade purists; they\u2019re pursuing industrial policies that include significant buy-American provisions \u2014 their policies are, in fact, nationalist enough to generate a backlash from some economists and protests from some of our trading partners. But their economic nationalism serves well-defined purposes. Some of it is intended to enhance national security by promoting crucial technologies; some to solidify political support for essential climate action and catalyze private investment in green energy.<\/p>\n You may or may not approve of Biden\u2019s break with free-trade orthodoxy (I do), but it\u2019s certainly not stupid.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s ring around the collar, by contrast, is<\/em> stupid. It\u2019s hard to see any rationale for his tariff beyond the crude idea that imports are bad and that a tariff would reduce the trade deficit (which it probably wouldn\u2019t).<\/p>\n And Trump\u2019s mindless protectionism is a symptom of a broader disdain not just for expertise but for any kind of hard thinking \u2014 a disdain that has infected pretty much the whole Republican Party.<\/p>\n So while Trump\u2019s tariff ideas aren\u2019t the biggest thing to worry about if he regains power \u2014 they may not even make the Top 10 \u2014 they add to the reasons that his possible reoccupation of the White House should make you very, very afraid.<\/p>\n