
When a President of the United States imposes tariffs, the justification is often framed as a patriotic effort to protect American jobs and industries. The rhetoric is compelling: foreign competition threatens domestic manufacturing, undercutting American workers and forcing layoffs. The proposed solution—tariffs—seems simple and effective. By making foreign goods more expensive, domestic production should flourish, ensuring that American workers remain employed.
This raises a deeper question: what does it truly mean to be conservative? While often used as a political label, conservatism is fundamental to the human condition. Thus, we are all conservative—our differences lie in what we wish to conserve. Some seek to conserve jobs in a few politically connected industries by applying tariffs, but this comes at a much greater cost. Tariffs do not conserve jobs across the broader economy, nor do they conserve opportunities for future generations. Instead of fostering long-term economic stability, they introduce inefficiencies that slow progress and innovation. Thus, in net, tariffs and protectionism are the antithesis of conservatism.
The reality is starkly different from the promised benefits of protectionism. Tariffs do not save jobs; they merely shift employment from one sector to another, often from more productive and high-growth industries to less efficient ones. This misallocation of resources ultimately weakens the economy rather than strengthening it. Worse yet, tariffs impose hidden costs that compound over time, leading to higher consumer prices, slower innovation, and reduced economic dynamism.
In effect, tariffs steal jobs—not just from today’s workforce, but from our children. They erode the very foundation of economic progress, diverting resources from industries that would have created more opportunities in the future. The short-term illusion of job preservation masks the long-term stagnation that follows, making it essential to consider what we choose to conserve carefully. The law of unintended consequences is always lurking, ensuring that when we protect a small set of industries today, we sacrifice much greater economic potential for generations to come.
The Seen and the Unseen: Tariffs and Opportunity Cost
Economist Frédéric Bastiat’s famous essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen provides an essential framework for understanding tariffs. The "seen" effect of tariffs is the preservation of jobs in industries shielded from competition. The "unseen" effect is the destruction of opportunities elsewhere in the economy.
Consider an American car manufacturer that competes with imports from Japan. A tariff on Japanese automobiles increases the price of those imports, making American cars relatively more attractive. The direct effect is that the domestic car industry may hire more workers. But what is unseen? Consumers, facing higher prices, must spend more of their income on cars, leaving less to spend on other goods and services. This reduction in discretionary income shrinks demand in industries that are not protected by tariffs, leading to job losses that are far more difficult to quantify but just as real.
Furthermore, the retaliation effect exacerbates the problem. Other countries respond to tariffs with their own trade barriers, reducing exports of American goods. Industries that rely on foreign markets—agriculture, technology, and advanced manufacturing—see demand for their products decline, forcing layoffs and business closures.
Comparative Advantage: The Key to Prosperity
The theory of comparative advantage, first articulated by David Ricardo, provides the most robust economic argument against tariffs. Countries prosper by specializing in industries where they have a relative efficiency advantage and trading for goods and services they produce less efficiently. This specialization increases total wealth by ensuring that resources—labor, capital, and innovation—are directed toward their most productive uses.
When the U.S. imposes tariffs on foreign goods, it disrupts this process. Instead of allowing market forces to direct labor and capital toward high-value industries such as software development, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy, tariffs artificially prop up declining industries. This not only makes the economy less efficient but also reduces the potential for long-term job creation in emerging sectors.
The impact on future generations is particularly devastating. If protectionism had dominated the U.S. economy in the past, industries like computing, aerospace, and biotechnology might never have flourished. Instead of allowing children to pursue careers in high-wage, high-growth sectors, tariffs force them into jobs that would not exist without government intervention—jobs that will disappear once protectionist policies inevitably fail.
The Burden on Consumers: Hidden Taxes and Lower Living Standards
Tariffs function as hidden taxes on consumers. Every tariff increases the cost of imported goods, which either directly raises prices for consumers or increases costs for domestic producers who rely on foreign inputs. The net effect is reduced purchasing power for American households.
For example, when the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese steel, domestic steel producers temporarily benefited. However, industries that use steel—such as construction, automotive manufacturing, and machinery production—faced higher costs. These costs were passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive cars, appliances, and infrastructure projects. The result? Consumers had less disposable income, reducing spending elsewhere in the economy. The number of jobs created in steel manufacturing was dwarfed by the number lost in industries affected by higher input prices.
The long-term consequence is a lower standard of living. Our children will grow up in an economy where the cost of essential goods is artificially inflated, reducing real wages and slowing economic mobility. Instead of benefiting from the wealth and efficiency gains of global trade, they will inherit a system rigged in favor of politically connected industries at the expense of consumer welfare.
Innovation Stifled: How Tariffs Kill the Future
Economic growth is driven by innovation. The most dynamic sectors of the U.S. economy—technology, biomedical research, finance, and advanced manufacturing—thrive on competition. Trade barriers, however, shield domestic firms from competition, reducing their incentive to innovate.
A historical example illustrates this point. In the late 20th century, American automakers faced stiff competition from Japanese manufacturers. Instead of imposing heavy tariffs, the U.S. allowed competition to run its course. The result? American companies were forced to improve quality, embrace lean manufacturing, and invest in new technology. Today, Ford and GM produce better vehicles because they had to compete.
If protectionism had been the dominant policy, the U.S. auto industry might have continued producing inferior cars, insulated from market forces. This same principle applies to every industry. When companies are shielded from competition, they become complacent. Productivity growth slows, innovation stagnates, and the economy suffers. Our children would inherit an industrial landscape frozen in time—an economy where yesterday’s industries continue to dominate at the expense of emerging sectors that could have delivered far greater prosperity.
Tariffs and the Fallacy of Job Protection
Proponents of tariffs argue that they protect jobs, but they fail to account for economic adaptation. Industries evolve. The labor market shifts. New sectors emerge, offering better opportunities than those lost.
Consider the decline of agriculture in the 20th century. In 1900, roughly 40% of Americans worked in farming. By 2000, that number had fallen to under 2%. Yet, the U.S. economy did not collapse. Instead, labor flowed into new industries—manufacturing, services, technology—creating millions of high-paying jobs that did not exist before. Had the government imposed massive tariffs and subsidies to keep farming employment artificially high, the transition would have been delayed, and economic progress hindered. Instead, Americans were provided education - like the public school system - to help transition from the farming economy. Americans were provided transition support, to help them bridge from the "what was" economy to the "what is" economy.
The same principle applies today. Tariffs may temporarily preserve jobs in politically favored industries, but they do so at an enormous cost: they prevent resources from moving into sectors that would have created more jobs and higher wages. In this sense, tariffs do not just take from the present—they steal from the future.
Conclusion: A Policy That Hurts Generations
The temptation to impose tariffs is understandable, given human nature’s inclination toward comparison, but it is fundamentally misguided. Protectionism offers a fleeting sense of security while undermining the very mechanisms that drive economic growth. It distorts markets, raises consumer prices, and diverts resources away from the industries of tomorrow. Economic growth over the past few centuries has been remarkable, largely due to an adaptable economy free from protectionist barriers. Yet, instead of appreciating the benefits of a dynamic system, people often compare themselves to the wealthier individuals around them, hoping that tariffs will bring them closer to that wealth. This belief is the ultimate economic sellout, sacrificing long-term prosperity for a short-sighted sense of security.
The real victims of tariffs are not just today’s workers, but future generations. By stifling competition, discouraging innovation, and raising the cost of living, tariffs diminish the economic landscape our children will inherit. If we are truly committed to securing prosperity for the next generation, we must reject the illusion of protectionism and embrace the opportunities that free trade provides. Only then can we ensure that America remains a land of opportunity—not just for ourselves, but for those who follow.
Resources for the Curious
Bastiat, Frédéric. That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen. 1850.
Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. 1817.
Roberts, Russell. The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism. 2000.
Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 1759.
Comments