April, 18th 2011

Trump should fire this idea

– Liz Mair

Now that a bunch of polling shows Donald Trump on the move in the prospective 2012 presidential contest, there's beginning to be some more substantial scrutiny of what it is that he's proposing (kudos to Dave Weigel for taking the time to read The Donald's book, something no one else, including yours truly, seemed to be arsed to do).  

The Club for Growth has emerged as a non-fan (surprise!)-- Matt Lewis titles his post on this "Club for Growth: Trump is a liberal."

And now CNN has a piece up titled "How 'The Donald' could incite a trade war."

Donald Trump's call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012.

But Trump seems to be overlooking the consequences that his economic policy would likely trigger -- a destructive trade war and higher prices, according to some experts.


Most economists would agree with Trump's logic that China is holding down the value of its currency to give its manufacturers an advantage when selling goods to the U.S.

But most experts argue that tariffs are the wrong response to currency manipulation, and come with steep costs.

The piece goes on to talk in more specificity about trade wars and how prices would rise and-- all importantly since lots of voters remain concerned about jobs-- how slapping tariffs on China would not serve to bring jobs back.  And if you're someone to whom this idea has had some appeal, you should go read it because by just about any standard going, this is a phenomenally ridiculous idea that should be, uh, FIRED.

Listen, there's plenty I like about Trump.  I love his TV show.  I like the idea of having more people in elected office with substantial business experience.  I like that he's a lot more socially moderate than, say, Rick Santorum.  I would love, and would in fact pay money, to see him in a debate with Mitt Romney and/or Barack Obama.

But I don't like the birtherism stuff, and I don't like this.  And neither should people wanting sensible economic policy to be advocated by their prospective presidential contenders. [intro]


Share by email