[dinodino]

...and Adam Smith was opposed to tariffs, because they distort the market, the same reason I’m opposed to them.

However, if Mr. Trump applies temporary tariffs to reset our relationship with China, I’m fine with that, as long as they’re temporary.

[wiseprince]

We can always just not trade with China. North Koreans will need Soybeans once they get off the nuke drug. China is not the only place in town. At some point trade deals will actually start happening in my opinion. If that is the case the U.S may find that there are other markets out there and that would weaken China’s hand too. If either the E.U or Canada or Mexico decides to grab up to a fair trade deal with the U.S the remaining countries are going to get a raw deal. The same is true if China grabs it first. That will suck for Canada etc. I think the smart play is to be first to get a deal.

[JPJones]

“...and Adam Smith was opposed to tariffs, because they distort the market,”

He was absolutely correct, the market IS currently distorted:

There’s little or no manufacturing in the USA.

[rb22982]

Adam Smith opposed tariffs when the entire world's GDP was about 5% of what the USA alone produces today. You have to remember the world's population in 1750s-1800s was a fraction of what it is today and the world consumption has increased by 100x+. Back then, countries did need to specialize. Today? The US has 3x as many people as Europe in total did in 1750 with far more resources than Europe did at the time. The US does not need the world to be productive. The world needs the US purchasing, though.

Furthermore, the other countries in question have tariffs on our guides, outright trade blockage, and steal IP, so it's not even free trade. Lastly, Adam Smith also hypoticized that currencies would rebalance to eliminate trade deficits. Why do we have a $500b trade deficit then (hint: currency manipulation)?

[Poison Pill]

temporary tariffs to reset our relationship with China, I’m fine with that, as long as they’re temporary.

They have been adjusting organically for years. in 2007 our trade deficit with China was 6% of GDP. Today, our China trade deficit is 2% of GDP.

You may think these tariffs are temporary now, but they are not.

[ConservativeMind]

The Income tax much more greatly distorts the market.

Taxes are penalties. Would any sane person want to penalize reportable income over buying foreign?

I think not.

[rb22982]

Left off an important note by accident in this sentence.

The US has 3x as many people as Europe in total did in 1750 with far more resources than Europe did at the time with 20000% higher productivity per person (ie 200x more productivity) than in the mid/late 1700s.

[thoughtomator]

> ...and Adam Smith was opposed to tariffs, because they distort the market, the same reason I’m opposed to them.

There’s no way to an undistorted market BUT through the imposition of reciprocal tariffs, and a later reciprocal agreement to remove them.

There is simply zero reciprocity in our trade agreements today and that lets foreign powers, including hostile ones, strip mine our economy for their own benefit and Americans’ detriment.

That is what tariffs are going to put an end to.

If you genuinely support free markets, you’re all but obligated to support reciprocal tariffs as the only reasonable path to get to a free market.