🧾Tariffs: Rigged vs. Balanced⚖️

Historical Review of Tariffs and Prosperity in AmericaTariffs have been a cornerstone of U.S. economic policy since the nation's founding, often used to protect domestic industries, generate revenue, and foster growth. Early leaders like George Washington and Alexander Hamilton advocated for tariffs to shield "infant industries" from foreign competition, arguing they were essential for building a self-sufficient economy. Hamilton's Report on Manufactures (1791) laid the groundwork, emphasizing subsidies and tariffs to nurture manufacturing.Throughout the 19th century, protective tariffs were associated with periods of industrial expansion. Abraham Lincoln, a staunch protectionist, supported high tariffs to fund infrastructure and protect Northern industries during the Civil War era. The Morrill Tariff of 1861 raised rates to about 47%, helping finance the war and spurring manufacturing growth. Post-Civil War, tariffs averaged around 45-50%, coinciding with the Gilded Age's rapid industrialization—U.S. GDP grew at an average of 4% annually from 1870 to 1900, transforming America into the world's leading industrial power.President William McKinley epitomized this protectionist era. As a congressman, he authored the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which increased average duties from 38% to nearly 50% on imports like wool, tinplate, and steel. This aimed to protect American workers and industries from cheap European goods. McKinley campaigned on tariffs in 1896, promising prosperity for all sectors, and won decisively. As president, he signed the Dingley Tariff Act of 1897, raising rates to an average of 57%—the highest in U.S. history at the time. Under McKinley, the economy boomed: unemployment fell below 5%, industrial output surged, and the U.S. exported more than it imported for the first time. Supporters credited tariffs with creating jobs and wealth; critics argued they raised consumer prices but acknowledged the correlation with growth. McKinley's assassination in 1901 marked the peak of this high-tariff era, but his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, continued protectionism, viewing tariffs as key to America's economic dominance. Other presidents echoed this approach. Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s supported the Fordney-McCumber Tariff (1922), which raised rates to 38% and empowered the president to adjust them further. This period saw the Roaring Twenties' prosperity, with manufacturing employment peaking at over 19 million. Ronald Reagan, often remembered for free-market rhetoric, imposed tariffs on Japanese imports (e.g., 100% on electronics in 1987) to protect U.S. tech and auto sectors, leading to voluntary export restraints and a rebound in domestic production. However, the relationship between tariffs and prosperity is debated. While high tariffs aligned with industrial booms, factors like immigration, innovation, and natural resources also contributed. Critics note that tariffs sometimes led to retaliation and higher costs, as seen in the Tariff of Abominations (1828), which sparked sectional tensions.

President	Key Tariff Policy	Economic Impact
George Washington/Alexander Hamilton	Tariff Act of 1789 (average 8-10%)	Protected nascent industries; generated 90% of federal revenue in early years.
Abraham Lincoln	Morrill Tariff (1861, ~47%)	Funded Civil War; boosted Northern manufacturing; GDP growth averaged 4% post-war.
William McKinley	McKinley Tariff (1890, ~50%); Dingley Tariff (1897, ~57%)	Industrial boom; unemployment <5%; U.S. became net exporter.
Theodore Roosevelt	Supported Payne-Aldrich Tariff (1909, ~40%)	Continued protectionism; economic growth tied to industrial expansion.
Calvin Coolidge	Fordney-McCumber Tariff (1922, ~38%)	Roaring Twenties prosperity; manufacturing jobs at historic highs.
Ronald Reagan	Tariffs on Japanese goods (1980s, up to 100%)	Protected autos/tech; led to job retention and foreign investment in U.S. plants.

Changes After 1900: Shift from Protectionism to Free Trade and the Role of Nixon's China OpeningAfter 1900, U.S. trade policy gradually shifted toward liberalization, driven by global events, economic theory, and political interests. High tariffs persisted initially—the Payne-Aldrich Tariff (1909) averaged 40%, and Fordney-McCumber (1922) allowed presidential adjustments up to 50%. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930) raised rates to 60% on over 20,000 goods, intending to protect farmers and industries during the Great Depression. Instead, it provoked retaliation from trading partners, reducing global trade by 66% and exacerbating the downturn. This backlash prompted reform. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) of 1934, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, delegated tariff negotiation authority to the president, enabling bilateral deals to lower duties. Post-WWII, the U.S. championed multilateralism through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, 1947), which evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO, 1995). Average U.S. tariffs fell from 19% in 1947 to under 5% by the 1990s, as rounds like Kennedy (1960s) and Uruguay (1980s) slashed barriers. This shift was justified by comparative advantage theory, promising cheaper goods and export growth, but it often favored service sectors over manufacturing. Congress played a pivotal role, approving deals that exchanged tariff reductions for market access. However, these were often asymmetric: foreign countries maintained non-tariff barriers (e.g., subsidies, regulations) while U.S. markets opened. The 16th Amendment (1913) shifted revenue from tariffs to income taxes, reducing fiscal reliance on duties and enabling freer trade. Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China marked a turning point. Ending a 21-year trade embargo, Nixon normalized relations, lifting restrictions on exports and imports. This geopolitical move aimed to counter the Soviet Union but unleashed economic forces. By 1979, full diplomatic ties were established, and China's reforms under Deng Xiaoping attracted U.S. investment. Subsequent presidents accelerated this: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush expanded ties; Bill Clinton granted China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR, 2000), enabling WTO entry in 2001. Tariffs on Chinese goods dropped to ~3%, flooding the U.S. with cheap imports. Congress approved these deals, often influenced by lobbying from multinational corporations seeking low-cost labor. Trade deals like NAFTA (1994) and CAFTA (2005) followed, reducing tariffs further. Senators and representatives, facing reelection pressures, traded votes for deals promising jobs—but manufacturing offshored en masse, with 5-6 million jobs lost from 2000-2010, largely due to China's import surge. Deep Dive Comparative Analysis: Congressional Privileges and the Manufacturing ExodusCongress members have molded laws to grant themselves privileges, particularly in financial dealings, while policies they enact have hollowed out U.S. manufacturing. The STOCK Act (2012) ostensibly bans insider trading by prohibiting use of non-public information for profit. However, enforcement is lax: members must disclose trades within 45 days, but violations rarely lead to penalties. Many outperform the market—studies show congressional portfolios beat S&P 500 by 6-20% annually, raising suspicions of trading on committee intel (e.g., defense contracts, regulations). This ties directly to trade: Congress approves deals enabling offshoring, then invests in benefiting firms. For instance, members hold stakes in companies with Chinese operations, profiting from low wages and subsidies abroad while U.S. factories close. Manufacturing employment plummeted from 22 million in 1979 to 13 million today, with 40% of the 2000-2011 decline attributed to offshoring. Trade deficits ballooned to $900 billion annually, gutting Rust Belt communities, while elites' wealth soared—congressional net worth averages $1 million+, far above the public. Comparatively, this creates a "rigged" dynamic: lawmakers craft policies for personal gain, eroding the middle class. Substantiated evidence shows abnormal returns during crises (e.g., COVID trades), with weak oversight allowing it.

Aspect	Congressional Privileges (Rigged System)	Impact on Manufacturing/Workers
Insider Trading	STOCK Act loopholes allow trading on policy info; weak penalties.	Policies favor offshoring; members profit from foreign investments while jobs flee.
Wealth Accumulation	Average net worth >$1M; outperform market via "political intelligence."	5-6M jobs lost 2000-2010; wages stagnate as elites invest abroad.
Policy Influence	Vote for trade deals lobbied by corporations; personal stakes in multinationals.	Offshoring to China post-Nixon/WTO; trade deficits destroy communities.
Accountability	Self-policed ethics committees; rare prosecutions.	Workers bear costs (unemployment, inequality); system perpetuates elite gains.

The "Rigged" System: Tariffs Rigged vs. Balanced Trade, per TrumpAs Donald Trump has repeatedly stated, the trade system is "rigged" against American workers: countries like China and the EU impose high tariffs/subsidies on U.S. goods while enjoying low-barrier access here, leading to deficits and job losses. Trump calls past deals "corrupt or stupid," benefiting elites who "rigged the system" for globalists like Hillary Clinton. He proposes reciprocal tariffs—matching foreign rates—to force balanced trade, encouraging domestic investment and revenue (e.g., rebates from tariff funds). This echoes historical protectionism, arguing free trade is unbalanced, ripping off America. Rigged (Free Trade Model): Asymmetric deals post-Nixon/WTO allow dumping, subsidies, and IP theft; Congress/insiders profit via investments; manufacturing hollowed (e.g., 33% job loss 2000-2010); deficits fund foreign growth at U.S. expense.Balanced (Tariff-Based Model): Reciprocal duties protect industries; revenue funds infrastructure/rebates; forces fair play, as under McKinley/Reagan; brings jobs back, as foreign firms build U.S. plants to avoid tariffs.Trump's view is substantiated by data: U.S. trade deficits hit $1T in 2022, correlating with deindustrialization, while elites' global ties enrich them. Protectionism isn't without risks (higher prices, retaliation), but history shows it built America's prosperity—free trade, as implemented, has disproportionately benefited the few.