Trump's Auto Tariffs Won't Help U.S. Manufacturing, But They'll Make Cars Much More Expensive

Trump is driving the American people crazy (myself included!) with his trade war, pun intended. Last week, Trump announced that he is imposing 25 percent tariffs on automobile and automobile parts imports, which took into effect yesterday. Per the White House's fact sheet announcing the tariffs, Trump believes these tariffs are a national security issue since "excessive imports [are] threatening America's domestic industrial base and supply chains." In his fantasy world, Trump believes that the tariffs will simply encourage manufacturers to bring production back to the United States. Give me a break! There will not be a revival of the manufacturing that the United States experienced in the 1950s because as I explained during Trump's first term, those days are long behind us.

In addition to believing the tariffs will boost manufacturing, Trump also believes that tariffs will make America great again, a claim that has been refuted multiple times here at Libertarian Jew. Whether it is under the guise of national security, fighting the War on Drugs, helping out small businesses, or fighting trade deficits, I have been shaking my head wondering what gives with Trump's trade war. So what makes Trump's latest tariffs especially harmful to the auto industry?  

Let's say that it is not a coincidence that General Motors' stock fell six percent after Trump's announcement about the automobile tariffs. And if tariffs are so good for automakers, why is Auto Drivers America, the largest trade association for U.S. automakers, denouncing the tariffs? Trump is not going to boost manufacturing or improve domestic supply chains because Trump does not grasp how supply chains work for the auto industry. As this table from the Cato Institute below shows, automobiles are not strictly manufactured in the United States. More than half of the content of what many would consider "an American car" consists of foreign parts. 

Some brands will be harmed more than others with these tariffs, but the harm in the auto industry will be widespread. And it is not as if these manufacturers could shift manufacturing to the United States on a dime even if they wanted to. That is not how capital-intensive industries such as this one work. Given how integrated the global market for automobiles is, it should not come as a surprise that these tariffs will increase automotive prices for U.S. consumers. Fragmenting the global supply chain will lead to more inefficiencies, which will contribute to the higher costs. Speaking of which.....

In its 2024 report, the International Trade Commission calculated that a 25 percent tariff on automobiles would decrease imports by 70 percent while increasing average vehicle prices by 5 percent. The chief economist at Cox Automotive, which is the world's largest automotive services and technology provider, had told the New York Times that these tariffs would make the average vehicle $3,000 more expensive, whereas the National Taxpayers Union estimates that these tariffs will increase the average vehicle price by over $6,500. Depending on the model of the car, Anderson Economic Group puts the estimates in a range from $4,000 to $12,000 per vehicle. 

This also means cutting back on automobile choice. To compensate for higher costs, automakers could cut back on various features or even stop selling affordable models. Cox Automotive also projects that there will be 700,000 few automobiles than initially estimated because of Trump's trade volatility and the trade war he initiated. That does not exactly sound like helping out the 7.3 million Americans working in U.S. auto manufacturing, now does it? 

What Trump does not understand is that it was freer trade vis-à-vis the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that made the automobile industry great, not protectionism. After all, the import quotas that the Reagan administration put on Japanese automobiles in the 1980s had the same unfortunate result, whereas automobile production took off after NAFTA (see chart below). 

Since Mexico is a major participant in the manufacturing of U.S. automobiles, these tariffs (along with Trump's trade war generally) could also push Mexico over into recession territory. Trump cannot coax the automotive industry into bringing its manufacturing back to the United States. What Trump's latest stunt will do is cause supply chain delays in the auto industry, limit automobile choice, undermine his own trade agreement, USMCA, from his first term (which will erode trade relations with other countries because it shows that he can go back on his word), and make cars more expensive. This goes to show that Trump's tariff does not make America great again, but rather really screws over the American consumer. 

Ranked-Choice Voting Has the Potential to Partially Help Fix the U.S. Electoral System

A couple of weeks ago, there were two state governors that banned ranked choice voting (RCV) for their state: West Virginia and Wyoming. This has brought up the total of U.S. states that have banned RCV to 13 states. RCV is an electoral system that allows voters to elect candidates by ranking them in order of preference on their ballots. There are typically two forms of RCV. One is instant runoff voting (IRV), in which there are multi-round eliminations use in a series of runoff elections. The second is single transferable vote (STV), which allows a vote to be transferred to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes. Maine and Alaska, the two states that have RCV for statewide elections, both use IRV. IRV is primarily used in single-winner races, whereas STV is mainly used in multi-winner races (e.g., electing members in a council).

What is so bad about RCV that 13 states ban its usage? For RCV opponents, it comes down to election integrity. They view RCV as a needlessly complicated process that makes it harder for voters to navigate and get timely election results released, especially when it comes to ensuring accuracy of the tabulation of votes in RCV. I can appreciate the argument for complexity; it is one I have used in favor for federal tax code simplification. The increased complexity of RCV diminishes my support of RCV. 

At the same time, it does not eliminate my support for RCV. One of the things that frustrates me about how the two-party system has evolved in U.S. politics is that it does not leave space for third parties to have influence. RCV is a fairer representation of what the American people want, instead of it simply being "Republican, Democrat, Independent, supposedly 'wasting your vote' on a third party candidate, or the increasingly prevalent apathetic voter." RCV means a more accurate depiction of the electorate because it shows who has the strongest support across the electorate, not solely the most passionate base of a given party. It would make sense that those devoted to either majority party would be most opposed since they have the most to lose in an electoral system that has been favorable to preserving this electoral status quo. 

I can point out that Australia has been using RCV for over a century (e.g., Reilly, 2009; Bean, 2007; Graham, 1962). I also remember what I learned from taking Comparative Politics in college: what might work in one political system may or may not work in the other one, especially when it comes to electoral systems. That is why I prefer to keep my analysis here focused on evidence in the United States. That also proves challenging since most states in the United States do not use RCV, although there are municipalities that do. As such, it makes the evidence base limited. Nevertheless, I tried looking.  

Alaska provides an insightful case study on RCV. Right-leaning think tank R Street Institute found that RCV in Alaska gave greater voter choice while improving representation (Williamson, 2023). This research also showed that it did not damper the Republicans' "ability to translate their support into seats in the state legislature." 

According to Patinkin Research Strategies, 85 percent of Alaskans found RCV to be simple when Alaska began using RCV. Another study by a political scientist at the University of Iowa found that 68 percent of voters believed RCV was easy (Coll, 2021). The voters having more difficulties were older voters. This finding helps to neutralize the argument that RCV is too complicated for voters. And while there additional steps to counting votes in an RCV system, that is a logistical obstacle that could be overcome. 

In its research on RCV (Eggers and Bouton, 2024), the University of Chicago's Center for Effective Government concluded that RCV across the United States could end up "leading to more candidates, less polarization, and less incentive to vote strategically." The polarization argument is interesting because it is one of the most often used by RCV proponents. 

As for less polarization, the research on RCV's effects is limited. There is a study about RCV in Maine showing that RCV can reduce polarization, but modestly so (Ceronne and McClintock, 2021).One other U.S.-based study asking about this question, but their caveated conclusion was that RCV only works if it increases the number of political parties in play. Otherwise, it would more likely increase animosity (Fischer et al., 2021). Using a sample size of 50,000 people, another study indicates that because RCV is more representative, RCV is better positioned to combat political extremism and polarization (Atkinson et al., 2023).

I like the idea of a system that does a better job of appealing to the median voter instead of what exists in the United States. I think it would be an improvement over the status quo. Based on theory and preliminary research, it seems to do well. At the same time, I would like to see more research that better establishes RCV's efficacy. In the interim, I will say this: As a series of RCV bans implemented last year illustrates, whether by ballot or legislation, it is easier said than done to make the transition from something that has been so engrained in the U.S. electoral system. 

How Lockdowns and Other COVID Measures Have Caused Suffering, Even in 2025 (Part III)

This month commemorated the five-year anniversary of the COVID pandemic being declared. A lot of panic ensued. Nothing encapsulated the hysteria more than the lockdowns. I was against them before they were implemented and strongly voiced my issues with lockdowns in May 2020. I criticized lockdowns multiple times throughout the pandemic. I continue to do so five years later. Why? Because its effects remain with us. I have developed such a strong opinion that I ended up writing a three-part series. The first Part was about health costs. Part II focused on economic costs. Today, I am covering the political and social costs. 

Still reeling from woke politics that the lockdowns allowed. How did I go from lockdowns to woke political clout?  In June 2020, I wrote about how the lockdowns precipitated the George Floyd protests due to the lockdowns and social isolation. There has always been a Far Left presence in politics, but they were on the periphery of the political Left. That changed in 2020 because the woke Left toke advantage of the social chaos and found a way in when society was at its weakest. Those protests, in turn, became an inflection point that opened the floodgates for all things woke, whether that is identity politics, Critical Race Theory, identifying by preferred pronouns, or racism-perpetuating DEI initiatives. While Trump being re-elected signals an anti-woke impetus in politics, we still have a ways to go before undoing all the harm that the woke Left has done both in the United States and abroad. 

Lockdowns made people less sociable and ruder. As I brought up in the previous Part, adults now spend less time in social situations. That makes sense because the isolation of the lockdowns created habits that adapted towards isolation and disincentivized socializing. But the effects of the lockdowns went a step further. According to senior advisor Brian Michael Jenkins at the RAND Corporation, prolonged isolation increases irritability and aggression while diminishing impulse control. 

Survey data from Pew Research released this month shows that about half of Americans say that people have gotten ruder since the pandemic.  Jenkins also noted that in past pandemics and plagues, there was a social erosion and mistrust that was even passed down to descendants. When you combine mistrust along with the effects of prolonged isolation (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress), I would hazard to guess that this coarseness and fear-mongering will not go away anytime soon. Speaking of fear....

We live in a more fear-based world than we used to. As of date, there have been about 7 million reported COVID deaths (Oxford). Even if the United Nations' estimate of 14.9 million deaths or the Economist's estimate of 17.6 million were true, the COVID death rate was nowhere the death rate of the Spanish Flu, let alone the Bubonic Plague. 

It does not matter that there have been fewer than 1 million COVID reported deaths since April 2022, and that's assuming those were deaths from COVID instead of dying with COVID. It does not matter that Biden declared the end of the pandemic in April 2023, followed by WHO in May 2023. A Gallup poll from earlier this month shows that 40 percent of Americans believe that we are still in a pandemic. I expressed concern in May 2022 about how the obsession of wearing masks would lead to greater fear. 

The lockdowns resulted in more authoritarianism. Sadly, that fear is with us not only in terms of COVID. It persists with the politics of both sides of the political aisle, whether it is the Right clamoring against immigration, crime, and pornography; or the Left fear-mongering about how climate change will end the world or how democracy will cease to exist if their candidates are not in power. 

Authoritarianism is bred with anger and fear-mongering (e.g., Butler, 2013). The pandemic gave politicians across the world cover to increase their power in the name of public health and "Follow the Science." To quote a study from Economic Affairs (Andersson and Jonung, 2024) that I analyzed last year: 

The restrictions seem to have inspired growing polarization, conspiracy thinking, and protests and demonstrations in many countries. The lockdowns may thus have undermined liberal democracy and economic freedom. Freedom of the press was curtailed...In authoritarian countries, restrictions were used as a pretext for increased repression. Confidence in liberal democracy was undermined when citizens were locked up and prevented from moving freely in society.

Even in the "Land of the Free," there were lockdowns, the school closures, and a Biden administration that doubled down on failed policies and eroding civil liberties along the way. As Freedom House brought up in its detailed report entitled Democracy During Lockdown, government responses to COVID in multiple countries eroded the essential pillars of democracy (see below). 

Freedom House's 2025 Freedom in the World report shows that freedom and democracy across the world continue to decline. The Human Freedom Index, which was co-created by the Cato and Fraser Institutes, do not fare much better. Reading its 2024 report on the Human Freedom Index, human freedom recovered a wee bit post-pandemic but is still well below pre-pandemic levels. Freedom of expression, rule of law, and freedom of association and assembly took the largest hits. Even in the Western world, whether it is the United States or Europe, people are lamentably caring less and less for freedom of expression. 

It remains unclear as to whether we are taking "one step back after taking two steps forward" or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the arc of moral universe still bends towards justice but is taking a detour. Time will tell on the long-term trajectory, but two things are clear. One is that the pandemic was an inflection point. For what it ends up being an inflection point for, we will have to wait. And two, at least for the foreseeable future, the trajectory of humanity is pointing in the direction of greater authoritarianism. 

A Libertarian Case for PEPFAR and Continuing Funding HIV/AIDS Prevention In Other Countries

Since 2003, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR for short, has been USAID's global health initiative to fight HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR has received over $100 billion in funds for the response to HIV/AIDS. It has been the largest global health program dedicated to fighting a single disease.  Why is PEPFAR making it on my blog? Aside from PEPFAR services being disrupted by the Trump administration cancelling various foreign aid contracts (read study on preliminary effects of that disruption here), Congress extended PEPFAR's reauthorization last year. If the reauthorization is not renewed, it is set to expire tomorrow: March 25, 2025.

This begs the question of whether PEPFAR should be reauthorized or not. Some of you might expect a knee-jerk response of "No" from me simply because it is a sizable government program. Last month, I made an argument for shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in no small part because of the perverse incentives that foreign aid generally creates. That much is true. Additionally, I worry about how much on PEPFAR is spent. In FY2024, the government spent $6.5 billion on PEPFAR. Although it is about 0.1 percent of government spending, I am quite concerned with the ballooning public debt of the U.S. government.  

At the same time, the price tag and the fact that it is a government program are not prima facie adequate reasons for me to automatically say "No." I am first and foremost a consequentialist libertarian. What this means is that my main reason for being libertarian is because I find that freer markets, lower taxes, and fewer regulations generally create more desirable outcomes than government intervention. 

It would not be the first time I argued for at least some government intervention in public health policy. I have done so by arguing for birth control subsidies, partial smoking bans, and paying people to take the COVID-19 vaccine, all of which I did from a libertarian lens. One of the reasons I have such problems with government intervention generally is because it does not solve the problem the policy was intended to address, or even worse, it exacerbates the problem. A government policy that actually helps is a notable exception, not a norm. Looking at the data, it looks like PEPFAR is one of those exceptions from an outcomes-based point of view.

PEPFAR's main success is its considerable positive health outcomes. PEPFAR reports that it has saved 21 million lives. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that PEPFAR reduced the all-cause mortality rate in recipient countries by 20 percent. I came across an independent citizen review of PEPFAR (Piper et al., 2024) that estimated that PEPFAR saved between 7.5 million and 30 million lives between 2004 and 2018. At that point, $70 billion was spent. That would mean PEPFAR costs between $1,500 and $10,000 per life saved. 

Let's create a low-bound estimate for this cost-benefit analysis. Use the average life expectancy payout from life insurance in the U.S. (i.e., $168,000) and the low-bound estimate of 7.5 million lives saved. it would mean $1.26 trillion in benefit for lives saved for the $70 billion spent, or $18 of benefit for each dollar spent. If you use the value of life from FEMA or EPA of around $11 million along with the high-bound estimate of lives saved (i.e., 30 million), the benefit-to-cost ratio increases to over $4,700 in benefit for each dollar spent. 

This back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis is quite frankly astounding. And to think it does not even consider the benefit of greater economic stability. The Kaiser Foundation calculated that PEPFAR was associated with a 2.1 percentage point increase in GDP from 2004 to 2018. Even if the boost to GDP was only 1.4 percentage points (Tompsett, 2020), that would still mean a $14 increase in per capita income for the sub-Saharan region, which is significant for a region with lower purchasing power. An economic analysis in the Public Library of Science found similar boosts to the GDP and education outcomes (Crown et al., 2023). Why would it create better economic outcomes? Because people who are healthier and live longer are able to contribute to the economy. 

One could argue that PEPFAR puts major emphasis on HIV/AIDS while de-emphasizing other health issues in those regions, such as malaria, tuberculosis, maternal health, or malnutrition. One could also argue that the U.S. government should focus on health problems at home, whether that is the opioid crisis or diabetes and heart attacks primarily caused by high obesity rates. Where funds should be spent and how much are subjective policy preferences directed by one's priorities and values. 

I would counter by saying that HIV/AIDS is another example of how a public health problem can be global, much like we saw with the COVID pandemic. Rather than focusing on government-to-government aid, PEPFAR focuses on public-private collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and suppliers of diagnostic tools, treatments, and other health technology to strengthen the private-care healthcare systems of developing countries that have been contending with high HIV/AIDS rates. This means that PEPFAR strengthens local health systems in the long-run instead of creating dependency on foreign governments for treatments and preventative services. 

Focusing on both HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention not only mean a lower mortality rate, but also means that stopping future infections means fewer dollars spent on treatment, especially if those dollars are spent by the government. Tangentially, the Right-leaning Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) makes a case for using PEPFAR to strengthen global security for when the next disease strikes. PEPFAR is an example of what foreign aid should strive for, rather than most foreign aid that perpetuates dependency and malfunctioning economies and political institutions. 

Does that mean that the PEPFAR program is perfect? No. Even someone as critical of PEPFAR as the Right-leaning Heritage does not suggest eliminating PEPFAR, but rather reforming PEPFAR. If USAID is indeed eliminated, PEPFAR could be managed solely by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Department of State instead of having USAID participation. There can also be better programmatic objectives, a focus on more countries due to the global nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, or even figure out how PEPFAR could develop sustainable health systems that can address multiple diseases. 

Much like I did with arguing for birth control subsidies, the libertarian in me has to ask what sort of costs would be incurred if the program disappeared versus the cost of the program itself. Some problems that would emerge by eliminating PEPFAR include increased HIV transmission and new infections, rising mortality rates, increased healthcare costs, economic stability and social unrest, and potentially regional instability in parts of the world that already have more than their fair share of issues. The interconnectedness of these problems could create problems not only on a regional level, but a global one. 

Some might balk at the price tag, but I would contend that it would cause more problems in the big picture by removing PEPFAR. I will conclude by saying that even with a need for reform, the number of lives saved and economic benefit derived from PEPFAR, not to mention the problems and headache avoided, make a very strong case for PEPFAR. 

Age Verification Laws Do Not Protect Children, Data Privacy, or the First Amendment

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of age verification laws. 

If you listen to social conservatives, they will tell you that pornography and other adult content are some of the major scourges in our society. Last year, I wrote a two-part series (see Part I and Part II) about how the social conservatives' war on pornography and other adult content. I detailed how a) porn does not increase sexual assault, b) that the health effects of pornography are mixed at best, c) what a consenting adult does in the privacy of their home is no one else's business because of this is supposed to be a free country, d) banning porn would have major First Amendment implications, and e) forcing porn in the underground markets makes matters worse. 

Even if one were to concede that porn consumption is acceptable for adults, what about children? Should it not be the government's priority to protect children from material that is not age-appropriate? I have covered the "think of the children" mantra multiple times, whether that has been with harmful COVID-era school closures, universal preschool, banning violent video games, or banning same-sex adoption. None of these instances merited government intervention, but maybe this time is different. 

I would start out with the burdens that age verification laws create. The age verification law debate is not new in U.S. politics. There was a flurry of age verification laws in the 1990s, and the courts struck them down because they impose undue burden on adult speech, whether that is the First Amendment right to anonymity, user access, website feasibility, or a violation of the vagueness doctrine (especially with censoring LGBT content). This does not even get into the murky waters of having the government defining what constitutes as age-appropriate, which could be manipulated by policymakers to censor certain information.

Better technology does not resolve these issues because the French government found with their age verification laws that they neither verify age accurately, are user-friendly, nor do they protect user privacy. In modern times, these systems would be collecting sensitive data, whether that is government IDs or biometric information. With the prevalence of data breaches, I would contend that it causes greater risks than benefit. And imagine a world where everything you do online would be tracked to your government ID or other biometrics because that is exactly what proponents are asking for. 

For argument's sake, let's give the social conservatives a benefit of the doubt and say that sacrificing the First Amendment and data privacy are acceptable prices to protecting the children. This leads to a more fundamental question of whether age verification laws protect children. According to a working paper from researchers at New York University and Stanford University released earlier this month (Lang et al., 2025), the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" 

What did these researchers find about age verification laws that make them so ineffective? In short, people find ways around age verification laws. One is to find content providers that are not compliant with these laws. Another is to use virtual private network (VPN) services. VPN services allow a user to mask their location, thereby circumventing age verification laws. Another researcher from the University of Toronto similarly found that people find ways around the age verification laws (Spencer, 2025). When arguing against aTikTok ban, I pointed out that bans, whether it is illicit drugs, sodas greater than 16 ounces, or high-capacity magazines for guns, can be circumvented. Age verification laws are no exception.

I have pointed out the problem with multiple instances of bans driving people to underground markets or less savory options, whether it is with sports betting, marijuana, human organ sales, payday loans, or with regards to prostitution. According to one of the researchers, age verification laws do not reduce overall traffic, but rather "drive users toward potentially less regulated and more dangerous alternatives." 

To summarize, age verification laws do nothing to protect children while harming data privacy and the First Amendment. Even the Right-leaning American Enterprise Institute recommended the market solution of greater parental controls instead of more government intervention. As TechFreedom's Corbin Barthold points out, "there is nothing conservative about letting the state watch your kids. If you're not overseeing your children's internet use..., laws are not going to keep them out of trouble." Much like with Trump's English as an official language executive order, age verification laws are an example of Right-wing virtue signaling that do not produce any material good.

How Lockdowns and Other COVID Measures Have Caused Suffering, Even in 2025 (Part II)

While the COVID pandemic might seem like a distant memory that started about five years ago, the truth of the matter is that we are still not over the impact of the lockdowns or other COVID measures. The fact that there are multiple impacts does not shock me in the slightest. I was against lockdowns before they started in the United States, and I was adamantly opposed once implemented because of the harm it was going to cause. This is hardly the "I told you so" I want to write, but here we are. I was thinking about this enough where I decided to write a multi-part blog series on how we still feel that impact to this day. 

Part I covered the health-related suffering, whether that was greater backlog in health services, higher obesity rates, higher rates of substance abuse, or less trust in public health experts. In Part III, I intend on covering the political costs that we still pay today. As for Part II right now, I will cover the costs related to the economy. 

School closures harmed the economic future of today's children. School closures meant that students were unable to effectively learn. In terms of academic achievement, students have still not recovered from the pandemic. As I pointed out in 2022, that loss in academic achievement and attainment will translate into diminished wages in the future. Not only will it reduce wages, but life expectancy, thereby diminishing their quality of life in the long-run. So much for the mantra "Think of the children!"

Lockdowns stunted our social skills and socializing, and by extension, can impact the economy. As I wrote in 2023, the lockdowns lowered children's social-emotional skills in comparison to the pandemic. That makes sense because childhood is a formative moment in one's emotional development and depriving children of socialization erodes social skills. While children were the most affected, they were not the only ones affected. 

According to a recent study from the Journal of the American Planning Association conducted by researchers at UCLA and Clemson University, people spend an average of 51 minutes a day less on out-of-home activities than they did pre-pandemic (Morris et al., 2024). This 51 minutes does not count the reduction of 12 minutes for daily travel. There also seems to have been at least some impact on college students, as well (Cerutti et al., 2024). Less socializing not only has impact on our mental health, but less socializing and going out can mean less economic growth. 

Increased poverty and income inequality, especially in developing countries. Before the pandemic in 2019, 37 percent of U.S. citizens could not cover a $400 emergency without needing to borrow or sell something (Federal Reserve). Economic insecurity was even more pronounced in developing countries, where 50 percent of households could not able to sustain basic consumption in the event of income loss for more than three months (Badarinza et al., 2019). As the World Bank illustrates (but does not explicitly state), having to endure lockdowns for multiple months exacerbated income inequality. 

As the International Monetary Fund points out, the ability to work remotely is highly correlated with education, and thus pre-pandemic earnings. This was more pronounced during the pandemic because those who worked remotely during the pandemic were able to maintain their financial status better than those who could not. As the IMF shows in another research paper (Fuceri et al., 2021), this trend impacted employment of lower-income households. Since it diminished the employment prospects of these individuals, the effects of lockdowns continue to exacerbate income inequality, and by extension, their future earnings. 

Federal debt made worse by policy choices. As I covered last year, the greater the COVID restrictions, the greater the budget deficit due to the economic downturn. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act cost over $2 trillion, with the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act costing $1.9 trillion. And that was just the COVID-related Federal spending in the United States during the pandemic. 

The trajectory of U.S. debt was already not in a good place before the pandemic. As I brought up during the pandemic, greater debt means more interest payments and less savings and investment for citizens. Because Trump is not showing any interest in reducing debt in any significant way, the federal debt gained during the pandemic combined with greater anticipated deficits will ultimately diminish quality of life for us all. Sadly, this was not a strictly U.S.-based phenomenon. Average global debt levels have increased by 12 percentage points as a result of profligate spending during the pandemic. 

What's Behind the Custom of Jews Wearing Costumes on Purim?

Tonight starts the Jewish holiday of Purim. I admit that Purim is one of my least favorite holidays. I am especially not a fan of the wearing costumes portion of Purim. I have never worn a costume for Purim. Although Purim is different from Halloween, it has enough overlap that it has a Halloween-esque vibe. That is what makes writing this blog entry ironic.  I am not the costume-wearing type, yet I am curious to see if I can find deeper meaning to the practice. 

Hiddenness. The idea of being hidden is a major motif in Purim. Not once is G-d's name mentioned in the Book of Esther. It is commonly understood in Jewish tradition that G-d performed His miracles in a hidden fashion, as opposed to a combination of coincidences and good timing. Esther also conceals her Jewish identity. Much like G-d hides Himself in the Purim story, we use costumes as a method to hide ourselves while celebrating the salvation of the Jewish people.  

Minimizing shame. One of the four mitzvahs on Purim is to give money or food to at least two needy people. On this day, Jews do not scrutinize almsgiving. Jews simply give, no questions asked (Talmud, Bava Metziah, 78b). Since poor people did not want to be known as paupers, the custom arose for them to wear masks to hide their identity and preserve their dignity (Lubavitcher Rebbe). 

Inevitability of non-Jewish influences. I have met Jews who think that for centuries, Judaism has existed inside in a vacuum. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jews have interacted with non-Jews and incorporated various aspects of non-Jewish life. The Jewish concept of the afterlife (Ha'Olam HaBa) was likely a result of from Zoroastrian or Hellenistic influences, whereas the Jewish concept of reincarnation were likely influenced by non-Jewish religions. The Chanukah practices of the dreidel, latkes, gift-giving, and the song Maoz Tzur all had non-Jewish influences. The post-Passover practice of making a challah in the shape of a key mimics a Christian practice. 

Costumes on Purim is no exception. Masquerades date back to the Roman era. The practice of wearing costumes during Carnival started in the 12th century. In contrast, the practice of wearing costumes on Purim was not first explicitly mentioned until two centuries later (i.e., until the early 14th century) by Rabbi Kalonymus ben Kalonymus. It also came with some opposition, either because it could violate the Torah prohibition of cross-dressing or because the costumes could be viewed as a form of debauchery that could lead to frivolity. In spite of the opposition, it ended being a widely accepted practice. Rather than look down on this piece of history, Jews should embrace the value of integration, which in this case means interacting with non-Jews (and even taking certain aspects of non-Jewish life) while still maintaining a distinct Jewish identity. 

Rags to riches. At the beginning of the story, Mordechai was fasting and was wearing a sackcloth (Esther 1:4). At the end, Mordechai is dressed in a king's robe (Esther 6:7-11) and took Haman's position (Esther 10:3). Queen Vashti was obsessed with beauty and good looks (Esther 1:11). In contrast, Mordechai shows that our character and having righteousness prevailing over evil is more important than external appearances. The costumes remind us that appearances are deceptive and that true meaning is often hidden below the surface. 

Embracing the topsy-turvy nature of life. There is a phrase in the Purim story that captures this concept well: ונהפוך הוא, or "and it was turned upside-down" (Esther 9:1). It seemed as if the Jews were going to be wiped out (Esther 3:13), but it was the Jews' enemies that were (Esther 9:1-2). Haman tried to hang Moredechai, but it was Haman that ended up being hung at the gallows (Esther 7:10). What was meant to be a day of destruction ended up being a day of redemption. As philosopher Albert Camus would point out, the world is an absurd one that often cannot be readily or easily explained. Wearing costumes could be seen as an embrace of the absurdity that is life, or at the very least, that life comes with unpredictability and elements of surprise that no one could see coming. 

An act of liberation. Much like the Esther story has multiple turnarounds, wearing costumes allows Jews to be someone different and subvert what is expected for a day, especially since costumes are an individual expression of creativity. To quote author Emuna Braverman, "We spend our lives very defended, working so hard not to be vulnerable.....Somehow, wearing a costume frees us. We are no longer our everyday selves bound by those self-imposed everyday rules. We are someone different , someone who is open to life, to the gifts and challenges the Almighty sends us, to seeing the good in them, to recognizing it's all a gift."

How Lockdowns and Other COVID Measures Have Caused Suffering, Even in 2025 (Part I)

Tomorrow, on March 11, marks the five-year anniversary of when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 pandemic. China responded to COVID by implementing draconian lockdowns and the world has not been the same ever since. Who cares if there was no evidence for lockdowns and that the pandemic guidance set by such organizations as WHO and Johns Hopkins advised against lockdowns? With Sweden being the notable exception, the world followed suit in terms of locking down the economy. Did the lockdowns help with preventing more death? No, it did not. 

If anything, the lockdowns increased excess death, which is not a surprise when non-COVID healthcare was postponed in 2020 and lockdowns exacerbated mental health. Lockdowns also could not pass a sniff test when it came to a proper cost-benefit analysis, meaning that we ended up paying way more than we should have. While the lockdowns are a thing of the past that almost all of us would prefer to forget, the truth is that the effects of those lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) still live with us today. Since I live in the United States, I take this from a mostly U.S.-based perspective, but will cite other studies when available. In Part I, I want to cover the health-related costs that have reverberated as a result of the lockdowns.

There is still a backlog in healthcare created by the lockdowns. Only allowing hospitals to deal with COVID-related maladies was not a decision taken by the coronavirus, but a policy decision made by humans. Although the NIH does want to acknowledge it was a policy decision, NIH at least acknowledges that there is still a backlog in health services from the pandemic that we are still dealing with today (Pratt, 2024). In November 2022, I analyzed a study that showed that delaying preventative screening resulted in missing one million cancer screenings in Europe. There is no doubt that the delayed procedures and screening have resulted in a backlog that continues across healthcare systems in multiple countries to this day. 

Lockdowns exacerbated obesity rates. There was definitely an issue with obesity prior to the pandemic. However, obesity rates worldwide increased considerably (Nour and Atlinas, 2023), including the United States. With people stuck at home, many people changed their daily habits for the worst, whether that is less physical activity, worse dietary practices, or more sedentary activities (e.g., watching Netflix). That does not count the COVID-induced stress. Another study from the WHO confirmed this trend for children in Europe. The data from the United States indicates that those obesity rates have not declined since the pandemic, which is intuitive since it is not easy to shed those negative habits once started. Given the numerous negative health effects of obesity, this high obesity rate continues to put strain on healthcare systems all over the world.  

High substance abuse rates persist. Back in May 2020, I expressed concern about how the lockdowns were going to cause mental health issues. Sadly, I was right. To deal with the stress of the pandemic (including the lockdowns and the job losses incurred), 13 percent of Americans went to substances to try to ease their woes. A 2024 study from the University of South California found that the pandemic-era increase in alcohol use persists. A similar phenomenon happened with opioid usage, one that is prevalent enough where Trump used it as a pretext to start a trade war. Given that it is difficult to end substance abuse or addiction, it is understandable that high substance use rates would still be with us even after the stress of the pandemic is behind us. 

There unfortunately is less trust in public health institutions. Americans trust their doctors less than they did pre-pandemic. There is also more skepticism about non-COVID vaccines because of all the hullabaloo of trying to force people to take vaccines. With greater skepticism, there are now measles outbreaks. Measles vaccines are effective. Measles outbreaks should be a thing of the past, but that becomes more difficult when the mistrust with the COVID vaccines spills over into all vaccines. With all the half-truths, faux pas, and recommendations not based in science coming from Dr. Anthony Fauci, former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and the Biden administration about COVID, it is clear why, at least in a U.S. context, there is less trust when public health officials politicize a pandemic.

Don't you worry! I have more to cover in Part II. 

Why the Jewish Symbolism Surrounding Bread?: A Look at the Hamotzi Blessing

I was recently doing a chevruta study session with a dear friend of mine. We have been studying a 13th-century Jewish text called Sefer HaYirah (ספר היראה). Although the word yirah is commonly translated as fear, I would argue that awe and wonder better encapsulate the word. That tangent set aside, one of the passages we were studying had to do with saying a blessing over the bread:

וירך על מלחם המוציא. ויתן ריוח בין תיבה לתיבה.

Now he says the [Jewish] blessing of hamotzi over the bread, but he must leave an interval between each and every letter.

That is quite the intentionality! When reading that, I had to ask myself why does Judaism put so much emphasis on bread? On Shabbat, there are two loaves of challah bread. During Rosh Hashanah, there is the round challah. For Passover, there is the unleavened bread of matzah. The Hebrew word for "bread" (לחם) appears in the Torah over 300 times. And bread is filled with carbohydrates, the most effective form of energy for humans. Most notably, it makes it on the top of the hierarchy for food blessings in Judaism. Why is that out of all the foods on the planet, Judaism values bread above all else? 

Before answering that question, I think there is something peculiar about the hamotzi blessing itself:

ברוך אתה הי המוציא לחם מן הארץ

Blessed are you, oh G-d, ruler of the universe, who brings forth bread from the universe. 

The blessing is weird at first glance because G-d does not bring forth bread in the literal sense. It is not like people plant seeds and out pops loaves of bread. It is a grain that is grown, such as wheat, that is eventually processed into bread. So why is the blessing framed in such an awkward fashion?

In the Talmud (Berachot 58a), the Rabbis talk about how much man had to toil to make bread, whether it was the plowing, the sowing, the reaping, the sheaving, the threshing, winnowing, sifting...you get the idea. Making bread is a lot of work and certainly was quite the task back when these blessings were crafted. As my friend independently realized, there is a lot of work that gets involved. And as I brought up in a previous blog entry, the multiple steps in the supply chain provide multiple opportunities for us to be grateful and wonder at how such a complex process exists at all.

Even more interesting is how the language is Psalm 104:14 is almost identical to the ones in the hamotzi blessing, i.e., להוציא לחם מן הארץ. The blessing does merely act as a tribute to G-d. It is an acknowledgement of a partnership. We both recognize the work that we put in to turn the wheat into bread, as well as wheat being able to be transformed into bread comes from G-d, the Ultimate Source of the Universe. A tangential lesson is that we are meant to work hard for our sustenance, but the overall trajectory is ultimately in G-d's hands. There are things we can do to improve our lot, but ultimately, the outcome is out of our hands. Dichotomy of control in a nutshell. 

Another interesting concept related to the blessing, which comes from Tiferes Yisrael, is that hamotzi makes reference to the entire Earth (הארץ), whereas the blessings for vegetables only reference the soil on the surface on the Earth (האדמה).  This actually is an extension of how much effort goes into making bread. We are not meant to get at the surface level. We are meant to dig deep and understand so we can nourish ourselves at the greatest depths of our souls. 

The Torah (Deuteronomy 8:3) teaches "For not on bread alone will man live, but upon that which issues from G-d's mouth." Yes, the Torah acknowledges being fed because poverty is terrible both materially and spiritually. Lurianic mystical tradition teaches that this Torah verse is about releasing the spiritual potential within the physical act. The task set before a Jew is how to transform a physical, otherwise mundane act and elevate it into a higher purpose. 

While it sounds daunting, it is not as arduous as it may seem. In contrast to manna, which in Hebrew is referred to as "bread of the Heavens," the bread over which we say a blessing is of the earth, something that is close and accessible. We do not need an intermediary or twenty years studying to become close to G-d or gain access to a spiritual life. It is close by. By reciting hamotzi, we can put minds and spiritual paths on a course previously unimaginable. 

Making English an Official Language of the United States Is Unnecessary

This past Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the sole official language of the United States. According to the executive order, Trump would like to "promote unity, cultivate a shared culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement." Reading this executive order, I have to question the necessity of this executive order. 

First and foremost, this is the first time in over two centuries that the United States has had an official language on the federal level. Trump's slogan since he ran for President in 2016 has been "Make Great America Great." If Trump wants to make America great again, that would mean that there was a previous time America was great. Guess what? During that first time America was great, English was not an official language of the United States. 

Although the Constitution and Declaration were written in the English language, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to declare English as the official language. Yes, English has been the de facto primary language of American society. However, America's economy grew to the point of having the world's largest economy. America became a haven for immigrants seeking a better life. Not only did America become synonymous with the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" or a "shining city on a hill," but America ascended to become a player on the global stage and a superpower. It did all of that without English being an official language of the country. So why do we need one now?

Second, the English language is not under threat. There are 1.5 billion English speakers on the planet, thereby making it the most spoken language in the world. Over three-quarters of Americans already exclusively speak English in the home (Census Bureau). Yes, Spanish is spoken by 42-plus-million Americans and rising. It is also true that third- or higher-generation Latino-Americans are much less likely to speak Spanish than their first-generation counterparts (Pew Research). Immigrants do not need an official language to realize that English is the de facto language and not knowing English while living in the United States makes life that much more difficult. English is not going anywhere.

One could argue that most other nations have an official language. However, I would point out that those nations are not automatically stable simply because they have an official language. I would not exactly consider such nations as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen to be stable or unified countries, even though they all have official languages. There are also countries that have multiple official languages, such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Switzerland. Conversely, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom do not have official languages. Essentially, declaring a sole de jure official language does not ensure the unity Trump thinks it does. There are much more significant factors playing into the present divisiveness of the United States. 

I would contend not having an official language is a reflection of what historically has made America great. We do not need an official language or religion because it reflects not only the diversity of this nation (350 languages spoken in the United States and counting), but also that the American Dream is based on the freedom to choose how to live our lives, including which language or languages to speak. Freedom of speech under the First Amendment includes being able to speak in whichever language you would like. Instead of respecting citizens' constitutional rights to self-express in a language other than English, Trump has participated in some serious right-winged virtue signaling, time which could have been spent focusing on more pressing matters. 

Trump Cannot Fight Trade Deficits with Higher Tariffs, Nor Does He Need To

Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has been more gung-ho on tariffs than he was during his first term. Not only did Trump threaten tariffs on U.S. allies Mexico and Canada under the guise of fighting fentanyl, but he implemented 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum. A couple of weeks ago, Trump passed an executive order for reciprocal tariffs. Trump stated that he needed these reciprocal tariffs to deal with the trade deficit, which Trump claims threaten the economy and national security. Too bad for Trump that tariffs do not help with the trade deficit. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), countries with higher tariffs have higher trade deficits. 

Why is this the case? Tariffs lower imports. This decrease in imports lowers demand for foreign currency, which in turn appreciates the dollar (Furceri et al., 2019). What does that end up doing? Making American exports more expensive for foreign consumers, which lowers sales. Plus, when there are retaliatory tariffs in play, the initial tariffs increase the cost of U.S. exports, which have the potential to cost more jobs at home, much like we saw with the tariffs from Trump's first term. 

None of this addresses the reality that trade deficits are not a bad thing. Trump bemoaned the trade deficit during his first term in office. In reply, I criticized Trump and explained why we should not be worried. In addition to laying out the description of the macroeconomics of trade deficits, I pointed out how a trade deficit can improve our quality of life and how the U.S. economy grew considerably in spite of running a trade deficit since 1975. There is more to an economy than trade balance, not to mention that the trade balance is not a sound metric for economic health. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Trump is imposing tariffs because of national security, fighting the War on Drugs, or because of trade deficits. Tariffs are not the solution. 

Consumers Will Be Fine If Trump Gets Rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

There has been a flurry of Trump attempting to curtail or eliminate entire departments, whether that is the Department of Education or the United States Agency for International Development. Another department is making its way to Trump's chopping block: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB. On February 9, CFPB Chair Russ Vought told CFPB employees to not pass any new regulations and to desist any current investigations, as well as stated that the CFPB will not be drawing its next quarter of funds from the Federal Reserve. One federal judge ordered a temporary stay on Trump firing CFPB employees, but the case will be re-heard elsewhere on March 3. Why should we care?

CFPB was enacted in 2011 by Congress as part of Dodd-Frank in response to the financial abuses after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The intention of CFPB was to the United States' consumer finance watchdog to protect U.S. consumers in the future. Admittedly, I have not written that much on the CFPB. I created a literature review in 2015, but did not come to any concrete conclusion about CFPB. In 2018, I scrutinized Dodd-Frank, including the fact that the costs with regulatory compliance overshadow the benefits that CFPB was claiming about its existence. Last year, I especially criticized a CFPB rule that put overdraft fee caps on banks, which upon examination, harm the consumers they were meant to protect. The fees exist to cover cost and mitigate risk. Banks will find other ways to account for these costs and risks. 

This does not get to the fact that we do not need a CFPB because it is redundant. For one, the state governments already have financial regulation and oversight, a reality that has played out in past prosecutions. Furthermore, the federal government already has numerous financial regulators (see below), including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 

Aside from redundancy, the CFPB does not have an understanding of what it actually means to protect consumers. This goes beyond the previous example of overdraft fee caps that limit financial services to low-income households:

• Ban medical debt from credit reports. In June 2024, the CFPB proposed to ban medical debt from credit reports to help out those who are burdened by medical debt. Thankfully, it has not been implemented yet. Low-income households are the ones most likely to have medical debt. Lenders are not going to ignore the absence of medical debt on the credit report, but instead will likely assume that there is undisclosed medical debt. This would lead to increasing borrowing rates, which could very well direct low-income households to less conventional forms of borrowing (e.g., payday lenders, loan sharks). Hiding information does not help, much like ban-the-box laws backfired and harmed African-American men who were not criminals and looking for a job.  
• Credit card fees. In 2023, the CFPB wanted to go after credit card fees. The Cato Institute rightly criticized this policy. I also criticized Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for proposing a credit card fee cap in 2018. After examining the history of interest rate caps, I concluded that a) high-risk borrowers will be cut off from the mainstream credit system, and b) lenders will find other clever ways to make up for the loss in their terms and conditions. 
• Payday loans. In 2016, CFPB issued a rule on regulating payday loans, which was overturned in 2020. I am glad this was overturned. I wrote on payday loans a couple of years ago. While payday loans are not an ideal financial instrument, putting the squeeze on payday loans means that these consumers go to less savory options, such as loan sharks, pawn shops, or putting a second mortgage on their home.   
• Anti-arbitration bias. In 2015, the CFPB tried to pass a law banning companies from instating mandatory arbitration agreements, instead of class action lawsuits. In spite of this rule being overturned in 2017, the CFPB continued with its anti-arbitration bias by creating a database in 2023 to help track which companies track arbitration agreements. Not only are private arbitration courts cheaper and quicker (7 months versus 3 years), but there is no evidence between arbitration agreements and being subject to CFPB action (Pham and Donovan, 2023), thereby implying that arbitration agreements are not a threat to consumers. 

I do not even want to get into how CFPB is de facto an unelected regulator with a blank check that has next to no oversight. The CFPB has spent years pushing consumer finance policy that does not protect consumers, but rather harms them and makes it more difficult to have access to mainstream credit. I will conclude today by quoting the illustrious Veronique de Rugy:

Rather than pouring more resources into this bureaucratic black hole, especially one that duplicates the work of other agencies and programs, officials should cut their losses and abolish the CFPB. Let's return to a system based on clear disclosure requirements, competitive markets, and the enforcement of fraud laws. Consumers should be empowered, not infantilized.

DOGE at One Month: Examining Its Tameness on Tackling Government Efficiency

DOGE. Department of Government Efficiency. What started out as a noncommittal remark by President Trump and a half-serious tweet from billionaire Elon Musk has made multiple rounds of the news cycle since Trump's initial executive order brought it to life one month ago from today. Initially, DOGE was created to modernize government-wide software and infrastructure. An executive order issued on February 11 extended that power to workforce optimization, including letting go of hundreds of federal workers. Critics believe that DOGE is an unconstitutional power grab that is going to dismantle the United States government. Proponents believe that DOGE will overhaul federal bureaucracy and bring sanity to profligate government spending and largesse. Which depiction is closer to the truth? 

Since Trump won the 2024 election, I called for the abolishment of the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Furthermore, condensing ministries was part of Argentinean President Javier Milei's plan to reduce government spending. As a result of his plan, he was able to generate a surplus for the first time in over a decade. It is likely that Milei's chainsaw approach to government inspired Elon Musk. In concept, I agree with having a bureaucratic agency focused on making government more efficient. The question is whether DOGE has been successful or will succeed, legal and constitutional challenges notwithstanding. 

DOGE claims that it has already saved the taxpayers $55 billion so far. When accounting for some preexisting improper entries, duplicate entries, and other federal accounting nuances, the figure is closer to $8 billion. DOGE has mainly targeted low-hanging fruit, particularly with waste and fraud. DOGE's workforce optimization is not much better. 

The rule of "one in, four out" for the federal workforce sounds drastic, but it does not do as much as one would think. The military as well as those in law enforcement, public safety, or immigration enforcement are exempt. That exempts 60 percent of the federal workforce. Plus, even if you cut half the federal workforce, the $150-175 billion in savings would not make a sufficient dent to tackle the $2 trillion deficit. 

And that is part of the point. The national deficit for year-to-date is $700 billion. To avoid that deficit spending, we would need to eliminate the Department of Education and USAID five times over. To avoid adding debt and bring a balanced budget, we would need to eliminate the equivalent of ED and USAID thirteen times over. That is how staggering U.S. government spending is! While one could argue that DOGE's spending cuts are worthwhile, they are modest in comparison to the large scale of government spending. 

As the Cato Institute brings up, trying to make government more efficient misses the mark. Why? There are aspects of government that cannot intrinsically be run efficiently, which is why there are multiple parts of federal government that should not exist at all. If you cannot scrap or at least greatly reduce the size of given government agencies, waste and inefficiency will ensue. 

This Cato Institute report to DOGE gets at how to address major cuts to the federal budget. If DOGE does not tackle the major three drivers of the federal budget, which are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, what DOGE can do to make the federal budget great again is minimal. 

This brings up a final point from Reason Magazine, which is that DOGE cannot go in and do it alone. Short of abolishing the Constitution, DOGE will need Congress' help to get the job done because Congress pulls the purse strings and Congress is responsible for determining the scope of the executive branch's activities. Given that Congress can barely pass stop-gap temporary funding, never mind pass all its required bills (last time it did that was 1996), I will not hold my breath in Congress getting its act together to help DOGE with its mission. Without lasting structural reform, DOGE is at best a distraction from the real issues facing the federal budget. 

Trump Didn't Learn From His Steel & Aluminum Tariffs Failures During His First Term

President Trump is not letting up on his trade war. Earlier this month, Trump threatened China, as well as U.S. allies Mexico and Canada, with tariffs. A little over a week ago, Trump decided to implement a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum tariffs, which will take effect in mid-March. 

I roll my eyes not simply because of how unpleasant tariffs are in economic theory. We have already been down this path. At the beginning of Trump's first term, Trump implemented a 10 percent tariff on aluminum and a 25 percent tariff on steel. In 2017, I criticized Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, scrutinizing his national security argument vis-à-vis Section 232 while pointing out how poorly they worked out when President George W. Bush implemented similar tariffs in 2002. It turns out I was right. 

What was the end result of those steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term? As I detailed last year, less export growth, a lower GDP, the 1,000 steel manufacturing jobs gained caused a reduction in manufacturing employment by 75,000 workers, not to mention more expensive steel and aluminum prices (24 and 31.1 percent, respectively). And guess who paid those higher prices? It was not China, but rather U.S. consumers. Last week, the Cato Institute also highlighted several studies that showed these undesirable effects. Here are some highlights:

• The American Action Forum showed the direct cost of the tariffs ended up being $4.6 billion annually (Lee and Varas, 2022).
• In its 2023 report, the U.S. International Trade Commission calculated that the tariffs caused a) a decline in downstream production of $3.5 billion, and b) that steel and aluminum prices increased an additional 2.4 and 1.6 percent, respectively. 
• The Center for Automotive Research found that his tariffs created a deadweight loss of $4.3 billion, and that the few jobs that the tariffs managed to save cost a whopping $635,000 per annum (Schultz et al., 2019).

Trump does not seem to understand the ripple effect this will have in the U.S. economy. As the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) shows, there are way many more construction workers that use steel, as well as transportation and packing jobs that use aluminum, than the jobs protected by the tariffs. Reason Magazine reminds us that for every job in aluminum manufacturing, there are 177 jobs in downstream aluminum-consuming industries. 

Reason Magazine also brings up the point that this will harm the energy sector because nuclear power plants are built with steel, carbon steel forges and aluminum tubular products are commonly used to extract oil and gas, steel makes up 69 percent of a wind turbine's mass, and aluminum accounts for 85 percent of solar power components. You want to know what that will mean? Energy prices are going to increase because of these tariffs. 

Right now, Standard and Poor's and the Tax Foundation preliminarily believe that the effects on GDP will be less than 0.1 percent. That might sound like giving Trump a reason to celebrate, but I am not holding my breath. Aside from the lousy history of steel tariffs in this country, there is still concern about how this will affect downstream industries. Standard and Poor's also surmises that the effects will be larger if these tariffs end up triggering trade retaliation, which is certainly plausible given how Canada and Mexico were ready to retaliate with Trump's other tariffs this presidential term. 

There are two reasons to believe the effects of the tariffs will be worse this time around. One, the aluminum tariffs were only 10 percent the first time around. Now, it will be 25 percent. The second one is that the administration has made clear that in contrast to the first term, there will be no exemptions this time around. To emphasize this point, these steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term did not help with national security nor did they boost the economy. How many tariffs will it take for the Tariff Man to finally get the hint that tariffs harm American consumers and businesses?