The Independent Market Observer

Tariffs and Trade Wars: Part 2

Posted by Brad McMillan, CFA®, CFP®

Find me on:

This entry was posted on Jun 14, 2018 2:30:23 PM

and tagged In the News

Leave a comment

tariffs and trade warsIn part 1 of this series, we discussed how, overall, tariffs can create localized benefits (e.g., helping a particular industry), but they do so by imposing higher costs on the rest of the economy. We also discussed the wider implications—primarily that when a country imposes tariffs, there is a real possibility that other countries will retaliate. This leads to a vicious circle that leaves everyone worse off. Economically, tariffs don’t make a lot of sense.

The politics

Politically, however, tariffs do make sense—as we are seeing. The reason is that while trade offers significant economic benefits, it can and has imposed real costs.

Here in the U.S., millions of jobs have been lost abroad, and those workers are paying for the faster economic growth that trade brings. Given those costs—and they are real—why do we let this happen? Beyond those costs (even if we conclude they are justified), shouldn’t we drive the hardest bargain we can when we cut deals?

This is the present administration’s position, and it has a great deal of fact and logic behind it. What is not included, however, and what has historically justified the current system is the bigger picture.

The bigger picture

To set the stage, we have to go back to the aftermath of World War II. Except for the U.S., pretty much the whole world was in ruins. The only other major powercommunist Russiawas on the prowl, looking to take over these ruined, destitute nations.

To prevent that scenario, the U.S. did a number of things. The Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, was a major step. But even more so was what was called the Bretton Woods system, named after the resort where the negotiations took place. Briefly, the deal was that the U.S. would buy everything that other countries sent us and protect the global trading system. In return, the U.S. got to run things pretty much as it wished.

This arrangement cost money—a lot of money. But at the time, the U.S. was rich enough to afford it. Plus, the costs were more than offset by the benefits, including saving Europe and Asia from communism and incidentally protecting the U.S. from a larger Russian threat; opening markets worldwide to U.S. goods, even if on a more limited basis; and making the U.S. dollar the world reserve currency. It was a bargain, in fact, gaining control over most of the world in exchange for helping them get rich.

Move on 50 years, and those once devastated countries are now rich themselves. Other countries (e.g., China) have signed on to the U.S.-led system in order to get rich. And we continue to run the world. The world trade system is still U.S. centric, the dollar is the uncontested reserve currency, and the U.S. Navy protects trade around the world and dominates the oceans. We got rich as well over that time period. And—this is critical—there was no major world war for about the longest time ever in history. Under U.S. leadership and subsidy, the world was rich and peaceful for an entire lifetime.

This is the justification for the current system of open trade underwritten and subsidized by the U.S.: peace, wealth, and control for the U.S., as well as peace and wealth for the rest of the world. This is what has kept the system going for so long.

Times have changed

Now, however, the situation is changing. The U.S. is still rich, but other countries are rich, too. There is no systemic global threat like the Soviet Union. The justification for the U.S. to pay for leadership on the one hand and to have that leadership on the other seems to have eroded. Things really are different than they were when the system was set up. As such, it certainly isn’t crazy to say the system has to change as well, to recognize those changed circumstances. One way to do that is to reconsider what a better system would look like.

Would a changed system be better for the U.S.?

Here in the U.S., the administration is doing just that and seems to be moving more toward prioritizing economics rather than American leadership in a global system. Fair enough. As we noted, there are real potential gains to be had here. To really understand what that change might mean, though, we have to look at some of the potential costs. We must also consider whether a changed system, whatever the intentions, would actually be better for the U.S. This is exactly what we will do tomorrow.

Subscribe via Email

New call-to-action
Crash-Test Investing

Hot Topics

New Call-to-action



see all



The information on this website is intended for informational/educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or investment product. Please contact your financial professional for more information specific to your situation.

Certain sections of this commentary contain forward-looking statements that are based on our reasonable expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets.

The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based measurement of changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest directly in an index.

The MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australia, Far East) Index is a free float‐adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI EAFE Index consists of 21 developed market country indices.

One basis point (bp) is equal to 1/100th of 1 percent, or 0.01 percent.

The VIX (CBOE Volatility Index) measures the market’s expectation of 30-day volatility across a wide range of S&P 500 options.

The forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio divides the current share price of the index by its estimated future earnings.

Third-party links are provided to you as a courtesy. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided on these websites. Information on such sites, including third-party links contained within, should not be construed as an endorsement or adoption by Commonwealth of any kind. You should consult with a financial advisor regarding your specific situation.


Please review our Terms of Use

Commonwealth Financial Network®