The stock market has not seemed thrilled with President Trump’s seemingly erratic approach to tariffs. Both the S&P and the NASDAQ are down about 5.5% since some tariffs on Mexico and Canada went into effect earlier this month. The President could reassure markets if he focused on using tariffs to raise revenue rather than to advance industrial policy. (RELATED: Are We Now in a Recession but Don’t Know It?) Trump seems to think tariffs are a great solution. But a solution to what? The administration’s tariff policy has run into trouble because it attempts to solve half a dozen unrelated problems: illegal immigration, Fentanyl, budget deficits, protecting American workers, fairness, and spurring economic dynamism. While these are valid concerns, the current tariff policy is not a good solution. Consider the argument that tariffs will generate a lot of tax revenue. President Trump said last week that China paid $600 billion in tariffs during his first administration. The actual number was less than $200 billion in tax revenue from all tariffs during Trump’s first term. And while low broad-based tariffs could raise more revenue, it will only make a small dent in the current annual budget deficit of nearly $2 trillion. Trump and other administration officials have said tariffs will spur domestic economic growth. This, too, seems suspect. After all, if this were really the case, why stop at 15 percent tariffs? Why not 50 percent, 100 percent, or even higher? Such steep tariffs would be too costly to the U. S. economy — the protected economy. Despite recent revisionist history, economists have argued for hundreds of years that tariffs are not pro-growth. (RELATED: Tariffs: The Hammer America Keeps Using) Then, we have the issue of fairness. While reciprocal tariffs satisfy our desire for justice, Trump’s claim that other countries are “ripping off” the U. S. blows the problem out of proportion. Yes, some countries do have higher tariffs on some goods. Mexico, Canada, and South Korea (and others), however, have negotiated trade deals, making the overall tariff rate between countries very low. (RELATED: Taxes by Another Name) The U. S. also participates in the World Trade Organization, which sets equivalent tariff rates on most goods. The “ripping off” President Trump mentions consists of a handful of very high tariffs on particular goods. These have hardly been a drag on the U. S. economy, which has grown nearly 80 percent over the past 25 years. President Trump has also promoted tariffs as a negotiating tool to get Canada and Mexico to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants and Fentanyl into the United States. But just last week, President Trump claimed that daily border crossings in February plummeted to “the lowest ever recorded.” If that’s true, the current immigration situation hardly warrants starting a trade war. The administration has also provided scant details about Fentanyl smuggling. Just how much Fentanyl still crosses the border? And how much do they want to reduce it? (RELATED: Geoeconomics in the Service of Geopolitics) The final and longest-standing defense of tariffs has been about “protecting” the American worker. Whether because of unfair labor practices, fewer safety requirements, lower quality standards, or simply cheaper labor, protectionists claim that domestic workers should be protected. But as any economist will tell you, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. The tariff that “protects” steel workers by taxing steel imports raises the price of steel — which then puts shipbuilders and other manufacturers who use steel at a disadvantage, harming their workers. What if we “protect” those industries, too, by putting tariffs on the goods these other manufacturers produce? Now, whoever uses these other goods must pay more. Besides reducing the consumer’s well-being, this cascading increase in prices will reduce how much money they have to spend on other things: eating out, music or dance lessons, travel, leisure, and, of course, other consumer goods. Tariffs change the configuration of workers and industry. They don’t improve them. In fact, because the taxes involved reduce trade and specialization, tariffs reduce efficiency and well-being. Rather than protecting American workers, tariffs protect some American workers at the expense of other American workers while reducing economic growth and prosperity for everyone. The recent continuing resolution to fund the federal government through the rest of this fiscal year does not address the enormous budget deficit. Revenue-focused tariffs may help but will hardly solve the budget problem. With the administration claiming victory in reducing illegal immigration, what more they want Canada and Mexico to do about Fentanyl remains unclear. And while reciprocal tariffs seem fair, the disparity in tariff rates between the U. S. and the rest of the world is much smaller than most people realize. Furthermore, “protective” tariffs can’t benefit all American workers — only some at the expense of others — while simultaneously creating inefficiency and slowing economic growth. So, for what problem are tariffs a good solution? There doesn’t appear to be one. READ MORE from Paul Mueller: Drill, Baby, Drill — But What About the Electrical Grid? A Better Alternative To the Davos Elites The Children of Elites Are in Trouble The post Tariffs, a Solution in Search of a Problem appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.