Trump’s Tariff Turducken

[Ender]

Trump’s Tariff Turducken


By eric peters - March 6, 2018


Trump is getting heat for his threat to impose tariffs on “imported” cars in order to help American car companies. But what about all the “American” cars built outside America?

And what about the “import” brands that build their cars here?

GM and Ford and FiatChrysler have plants in Mexico. The American 1500 series trucks they build there are shipped here. They are objectively imported. Should they be tariffized?

Toyota has a yuge operation in California. Nissan builds its trucks in Tennessee. Honda has plants in Ohio. BMW builds SUVS in South Carolina. Are these “imported” cars? Should they receive protection from the “foreign” competition – even if the brand in question happens to have its corporate HQ here?

The fulsome scurvy truth is there’s no such thing as an “American” car – or an “imported” one. Not anymore.

Not as they used to be.

People outside the business don’t realize how international not just the car companies have become but also the cars – most of which wouldn’t run without common parts from Bosch (injectors) and Denso (electronics) and ZF (transmissions) and a bunch of others, regardless of the brand on the fender.

Cars are built to a global standard nowadays. Like it or not, it is what it is.

The current Ford Mustang, as a for-instance. It was specifically designed not just for America but also for Europe and other export markets. The influence of this works both ways. One way – in the case of the Mustang – is that it remained rear-wheel-drive. American Mustang buyers demand this – would revolt if Ford changed this to the more common front-wheel-drive layout. So, that stayed. But the Mustang also got a standard four cylinder engine – with a turbo – which was done to make the car more agreeable to European/export market buyers who have to deal with (among other things) gas prices twice as high as what we pay.

The point is, the architecture – an industry term – is global. Go visit a major automaker’s web page; read about it for yourself.

Nationalism is an anachronism, at least in terms of how cars are designed and built as well as where they are built.

Did you know that Jaguar (and Land Rover) are owned by an Indian conglomerate? They are British in heritage, but no longer English. Should they be hit with punitive taxes on account of this? How about all the Buicks GM builds in China? Speaking of that . . . who do you suppose owns Volvo these days? Hint: It’s not the Swedes.

The point here is that imposing tariffs based on who’s an “import” and who’s not is going to be yugely problematic. Trump is operating on the basis of a false premise – one that hasn’t existed in fact since at least the 1980s. In those days, one could at least speak accurately of imported and domestic cars. It is much harder to do so today without it just being idiot demagoguery cynically calculated to inflame the boobs who don’t know any better. Who think, for instance, that their all-American truck was actually made in American rather than hecho en Mexico.

The real problem – which Trump could address without resorting to idiot demagoguery – is not “unfair trade” but stupid (and morally unjustifiable) regulations emanating from Washington. For instance, Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) regs which raise the cost of cars in order to make them use less gas. Which in the first place is none of the government’s proper business.

It’s your car. And in the second place, it’s your gas.

You pay for both. Which makes it no more the government’s business than where you choose to eat and how much you choose to eat. People would get their backs up about the latter – if the government began decreeing where they were allowed to eat – and telling them how much they could eat. It’s the same principle.

CAFE has made cars cost literally thousands of dollars more than they otherwise would. Far more than they do as the result of “unfair” trade. This is not conjecture. It’s verifiable fact. CAFE – the pressure to make every car an economy car, in terms of its average fuel consumption – has pushed the car manufacturers (“foreign” and “domestic”) to add direct injection in place of port fuel injection and put transmissions with nine and ten speeds in ordinary family cars. These “save gas” – but cost money.

Our money.

And that makes it our business – not Uncle’s.

Getting Uncle out of the business of dictating mandatory minimum MPGs would be a boon to everyone, import and domestic alike. It might result in more “gas guzzlers” being made. But that doesn’t mean fuel-efficient cars wouldn’t be available – so long as natural market demand exists for them. It just means the government would no longer be in the business of punishing those who have different demands.

Another productive thing Trump could do would be to get the government out of the “safety” business – which is also none of the government’s business. It is important to define our terms here. We are not talking about defective cars or cars that aren’t roadworthy. Just cars that don’t meet the government’s arbitrary criteria regarding how well they withstand crashing into things.

This, again, is properly our business.

Once upon a time, it was. People could choose very efficient – and very light – cars that maybe couldn’t take a broadside as well as a Cadillac Sedan deVille but also didn’t cost as much as a Sedan deVille and used a lot less gas, too.

The government took those choices away. Trump could give them back.

And unlike the idiotic tariff threats he’s making – which would hurt the car business as well as car buyers – getting Uncle out of the MPG and “safety” business would help everyone.

Well, except for the useless eaters in Washington – who make a fat living inserting themselves into things which are none of their got-damned business.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/03/06/trumps-tariff-turducken/

[TheCount]

Obviously the foreign factories should be nationalized for the benefit of the worker and state.

[angelatc]

GM and Ford and FiatChrysler have plants in Mexico. The American 1500 series trucks they build there are shipped here. They are objectively imported. Should they be tariffized?

Yes.


The real problem – which Trump could address without resorting to idiot demagoguery – is not “unfair trade” but stupid (and morally unjustifiable) regulations emanating from Washington.

Absolutely.


Getting Uncle out of the business of dictating mandatory minimum MPGs would be a boon to everyone, import and domestic alike

Absolutely. But not going to happen.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Obviously the foreign factories should be nationalized for the benefit of the worker and state.

I'd guess a progressive and extremist like you would be jumping for joy.

[EBounding]

I should probably know this already, but how can Trump place tariffs without congressional approval?

[TheCount]

I should probably know this already, but how can Trump place tariffs without congressional approval?

He declares low prices as a threat to national security.

[dannno]

I should probably know this already, but how can Trump place tariffs without congressional approval?

Yes, you should already know this, I posted a video all about that and much more.

But instead of learning for yourself you can always apologize to me later when we end up paying less tariffs.

[EBounding]

Yes, you should already know this, I posted a video all about that and much more.

But instead of learning for yourself you can always apologize to me later when we end up paying less tariffs.

I was just asking what gives him the authority to do so, hoping someone could give me a quick answer.


He declares low prices as a threat to national security.

Thanks for answering my question.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He declares low prices as a threat to national security.


Your voting choice (twice) of Obama agreed that "climate change" was a threat to national security. He said, "The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it." (https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/index.html)

[donnay]

He declares low prices as a threat to national security.

Guess you haven't studied history.

If this country is to remain self-reliant and strong we have to rely on no one but ourselves. That's what will make us great again.

[TheCount]

Your voting choice (twice) of Obama agreed that "climate change" was a threat to national security. He said, "The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it." (https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/index.html)


Guess you haven't studied history.

If this country is to remain self-reliant and strong we have to rely on no one but ourselves. That's what will make us great again.

I find it interesting that you are both so reflexively defensive when all I did was answer the question that was asked. Do you have some kind of issue with that answer, or perhaps think it is not factually correct?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I find it interesting that you are both so reflexively defensive when all I did was answer the question that was asked. Do you have some kind of issue with that answer, or perhaps think it is not factually correct?


Why would you give that answer?

[TheTexan]

We should introduce a tariff on all imports, and gradually raise this by 10% each year

Eventually everything will be made in America

[undergroundrr]

I can't wait to see the executive orders coming out of the Winfrey/Warren administration.

The fact that trump can and would do such a thing as implement tariffs by executive order should send chills down the spine, doubly so for anybody who hated Obama.

[donnay]

I find it interesting that you are both so reflexively defensive when all I did was answer the question that was asked. Do you have some kind of issue with that answer, or perhaps think it is not factually correct?

Because you said: "He [Trump] declares low prices as a threat to national security."

You think Trump is right or wrong?

[Anti Federalist]

Karl Marx was in favor of free trade.

He knew it would break down national barriers, while at the same time impoverishing the middle class (the bourgeoisie) which would lead to socialist revolution and the ushering in of a global, communist, world order.


But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. - Karl Marx 1848

[Origanalist]

Karl Marx was in favor of free trade.

He knew it would break down national barriers, while at the same time impoverishing the middle class (the bourgeoisie) which would lead to socialist revolution and the ushering in a global communist world order.

Lol, so Ron Paul and Karl Marx both in favor of free trade. Mind blown.......

[Swordsmyth]

Lol, so Ron Paul and Karl Marx both in favor of free trade. Mind blown.......

That kind of thing is why you can't just support or oppose something because FILL_IN_THE_BLANK does.

[Origanalist]

That kind of thing is why you can't just support or oppose something because FILL_IN_THE_BLANK does.

Well amen to that.

Though I'm generally in agreement with the good doctor.

[Anti Federalist]

Lol, so Ron Paul and Karl Marx both in favor of free trade. Mind blown.......

I know, right?

Ron is in favor of free trade because he believes people's natural proclivities run towards "more freedom".

Free trade and free markets and free minds with a happy and prosperous humanity holding hands and marching off into a bright future.

But clearly, Ron is wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They want bans, and regulations, and wealth redistribution, and silencing of improper and unpolitical opinions, and a disarmed populace, and surveillance, and control, and cops, and forfeiture of property and TSA...and on and on and on.

Marx understood the dark side of human nature much better, and devised a clever system that feeds off that.

Which is why his theories and pronouncements still hold billions of people in his grasp, even after the documented failures, over and over again, and the millions and millions of dead, in his name.

[undergroundrr]

I'm so thankful there are people here to correct the poorly-thought out bleetings of Dr. Paul, Bastiat, Mises, et al. It's about time we threw off the limiting shackles of the site's nom de plume.

[Swordsmyth]

I know, right?

Ron is in favor of free trade because he believes people's natural proclivities run towards "more freedom".

Free trade and free markets and free minds with a happy and prosperous humanity holding hands and marching off into a bright future.

But clearly, Ron is wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They want bans, and regulations, and wealth redistribution, and silencing of improper and unpolitical opinions, and a disarmed populace, and surveillance, and control, and cops, and forfeiture of property and TSA...and on and on and on.

Marx understood the dark side of human nature much better, and devised a clever system that feeds off that.

Which is why his theories and pronouncements still hold billions of people in his grasp, even after the documented failures, over and over again, and the millions and millions of dead, in his name.

You must spread some reputation around......

Liberty is like a well ordered garden, you won't find it in nature and if you create it it must be protected to keep out the weeds and critters.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm so thankful there are people here to correct the poorly-thought out bleetings of Dr. Paul, Bastiat, Mises, et al. It's about time we threw off the limiting shackles of the site's nom de plume.

I'm so glad we have people like you to remind us not to think for ourselves and to worship a mortal man.:rolleyes:

[TheCount]

Because you said: "He [Trump] declares low prices as a threat to national security."

You think Trump is right or wrong?

Question:

I should probably know this already, but how can Trump place tariffs without congressional approval?

Answer:

He declares low prices as a threat to national security.

[Swordsmyth]

Question:


Answer:

The correct answer is that Congress passed a law giving the President the authority.

[Swordsmyth]

After a week of hints and uncertainty, President Donald Trump said Thursday he would announce tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement. He suggested Australia and "other countries" might also be spared, a shift that could soften the international blow amid threats of retaliation by trading partners.Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will take effect in 15 days, with Canada and Mexico indefinitely exempted from the duties, according to people outside the White House who were briefed on the plans Thursday. The people spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the president's signing of the orders.
"We're going to be very fair, we're going to be very flexible but we're going to protect the American worker as I said I would do in my campaign," Trump said during a Cabinet meeting.
The president reiterated that he would levy tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum but would "have a right to go up or down depending on the country and I'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries. I just want fairness."
The president indicated Canada and Mexico's treatment would be connected to the ongoing NAFTA talks, which are expected to resume in early April.
The people briefed on the plans said all countries affected by the tariffs would be invited to negotiate with the Trump administration to be exempted from the tariffs if they can address the threat their exports pose to U.S. manufacturers. The people said the exclusions for Canada and Mexico could be ended if talks to renegotiate NAFTA stall.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lawmakers-business-brace-rollout-trumps-052248007.html

[undergroundrr]

Karl Marx was in favor of free trade.

He knew it would break down national barriers, while at the same time impoverishing the middle class (the bourgeoisie) which would lead to socialist revolution and the ushering in of a global, communist, world order.

Karl Marx believed wrongly that any free market exchange was inherently inequitable and was a step toward revolution. He believed the same thing as trump, that economic liberty destroys the middle class. That's what Marx is really saying in that quote, which is really just a fallacious twist on dannno's argument for tariffs.

The American government, through ACTION, not inaction, has destroyed the American economy. Chinese crap isn't destroying the economy, it's the only way Americans can afford to clean their toilets now, not because of the Chinese government, but because of the American government.

Keep your eye on the ball - regulation, taxation, militarism, castrating the dollar. Producing goods in America is expensive and difficult and that has absolutely nothing to do with China. Tariffs aren't going to increase American production, just decrease consumer buying power.

[TheCount]

The correct answer is that Congress passed a law giving the President the authority.
Yes, the authority to declare low prices a national security threat.


SEC. 232. SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL SECURITY.

(a) No action shall be taken pursuant to section 201 (a) or pursuantto section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to decrease or eliminate theduty or other import restriction on any article if the President determinesthat such reduction or elimination would threaten to impairthe national security.

(b) Upon request of the head of any department or agency, uponapplication of an interested party, or upon his own motion, the Directorof the Office of Emergency Planning (hereinafter in this sectionreferred to as the "Director") shall immediately make an appropriateinvestigation, in the course of which he shall seek information andadvice from other appropriate departments and agencies, to determinethe effects on the national security of imports of the article which isthe subject of such request, application, or motion. If, as a result ofsuch investigation, the Director is of the opinion that the said articleis being imported into the LTnited States in such quantities or underSuch circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, heshall promptly so advise the President, and, unless the Presidentdetermines that the article is not being imported into the United Statesin such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impairthe national security as set forth in this section, he shall take suchaction, and for such time, as he deems necessary to adjust the importsof such article and its derivatives so that such imports will not sothreaten to impair the national security.

(c) For the purposes of this section, the Director and the Presidentshall, in the light of the requirements of national security and withoutexcluding other relevant factors, give consideration to domesticproduction needed for projected national defense requirements, thecapacity of domestic industries to meet such requirements, existingand anticipated availabilities of the human resources, products, rawmaterials, and other supplies and services essential to the nationaldefense, the requirements of growth of such industries and such suppliesand services including the investment, exploration, and developmentnecessary to assure such growth, and the importation of goodsin terms of th6ir quantities, availabilities, character, and use as thoseaffect such industries and the capacity of the United States to meetnational security requirements. In the administration of this section,the Director and the President shall further recognize the close relationof the economic welfare of the Nation to our national security,and shall take into consideration the impact of foreign competitionon the economic welfare of individual domestic industries; and anysubstantial unemployment, decrease in revenues of government, lossof skills or investment, or other serious effects resulting from the displacementof any domestic products by excessive imports shall be considered,without excluding other factors, in determining whether suchweakening of our internal economy may impair the national security.

(d) A report shall be made and published upon the disposition of each request, application, or motion under subsection (b). The Director shall publish procedural regulations to give effect to the authority conferred on him by subsection (b).

[Swordsmyth]

Karl Marx believed wrongly that any free market exchange was inherently inequitable and was a step toward revolution. He believed the same thing as trump, that economic liberty destroys the middle class. That's what Marx is really saying in that quote, which is really just a fallacious twist on dannno's argument for tariffs.

The American government, through ACTION, not inaction, has destroyed the American economy. Chinese crap isn't destroying the economy, it's the only way Americans can afford to clean their toilets now, not because of the Chinese government, but because of the American government.

Keep your eye on the ball - regulation, taxation, militarism, castrating the dollar. Producing goods in America is expensive and difficult and that has absolutely nothing to do with China. Tariffs aren't going to increase American production, just decrease consumer buying power.

An effect can have multiple causes, we have been economically destroyed through attacks on all fronts, economic warfare may be unprofitable in the long run (just like real warfare) but it can do damage to the target if they don't fight back, it can even destroy them.

[Swordsmyth]

Karl Marx was in favor of free trade.

He knew it would break down national barriers, while at the same time impoverishing the middle class (the bourgeoisie) which would lead to socialist revolution and the ushering in of a global, communist, world order.

Free Trade is exactly like disarmament, it is used as a way to soften up a target for conquest, it's true that in a perfect world we could have both BUT THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD, while a trade war is no more desirable than an arms race you can be forced into either one by the actions of your rivals because you will be destroyed if you disarm unilaterally.

[Ender]

Karl Marx believed wrongly that any free market exchange was inherently inequitable and was a step toward revolution. He believed the same thing as trump, that economic liberty destroys the middle class. That's what Marx is really saying in that quote, which is really just a fallacious twist on dannno's argument for tariffs.

The American government, through ACTION, not inaction, has destroyed the American economy. Chinese crap isn't destroying the economy, it's the only way Americans can afford to clean their toilets now, not because of the Chinese government, but because of the American government.

Keep your eye on the ball - regulation, taxation, militarism, castrating the dollar. Producing goods in America is expensive and difficult and that has absolutely nothing to do with China. Tariffs aren't going to increase American production, just decrease consumer buying power.

^^^THIS^^^

This is truth and most here do NOT understand finances OR know real history.

[undergroundrr]

Free Trade is exactly like disarmament

Serious question, when you say Free Trade, do you mean "managed trade?"

[Swordsmyth]

Serious question, when you say Free Trade, do you mean "managed trade?"
Nope, I keep pointing out that NAFTA etc. are managed trade to all the dummies who defend them.

[Swordsmyth]

Karl Marx was in favor of free trade.

He knew it would break down national barriers, while at the same time impoverishing the middle class (the bourgeoisie) which would lead to socialist revolution and the ushering in of a global, communist, world order.


Karl Marx believed wrongly that any free market exchange was inherently inequitable and was a step toward revolution. He believed the same thing as trump, that economic liberty destroys the middle class. That's what Marx is really saying in that quote, which is really just a fallacious twist on dannno's argument for tariffs.

The American government, through ACTION, not inaction, has destroyed the American economy. Chinese crap isn't destroying the economy, it's the only way Americans can afford to clean their toilets now, not because of the Chinese government, but because of the American government.

Keep your eye on the ball - regulation, taxation, militarism, castrating the dollar. Producing goods in America is expensive and difficult and that has absolutely nothing to do with China. Tariffs aren't going to increase American production, just decrease consumer buying power.

Marx supported Free Trade becuase he knew it would bring results like this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/wealth_inequality_mar7.png

Fertile ground to plant the seeds of communism.

[Raginfridus]

Commie Gooks and the fucking Big Lots guy in cahoots to destroy America. I might have known...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FL3sVwJVnfk/TSOMSrh4RDI/AAAAAAAAAcw/Z5r1nzU_I34/s1600/mrbiglots.jpg

[Raginfridus]

An effect can have multiple causes, we have been economically destroyed through attacks on all fronts, economic warfare may be unprofitable in the long run (just like real warfare) but it can do damage to the target if they don't fight back, it can even destroy them.Where's this MAGA labor pool coming from that's going to produce what's too expensive to manufacture American or import from China?

(The answer is Indonesia. And Vietnam. And Malaysia. And India. And...)

[Swordsmyth]

Where's this MAGA labor pool coming from that's going to produce what's too expensive to manufacture American or import from China?

(The answer is Indonesia. And Vietnam. And Malaysia. And India. And...)

America can produce almost everything we need and fighting back in the trade war doesn't preclude us from importing things after we make the other countries play fair.

[Raginfridus]

Horseshit.

[Krugminator2]

Marx supported Free Trade becuase he knew it would bring results like this:

Fertile ground to plant the seeds of communism.


So you linked to a graph from Piketty whose book is play on the title from a Karl Marx book? It is interesting to see the farthest left wing economist on the planet cited on Ron Paul Forums.

Incomes in the bottom have risen over that time period. It kind of puts blaming free trade for wealth inequality to rest.

[Swordsmyth]

So you linked to a graph from Piketty whose book is play on the title from a Karl Marx book? It is interesting to see the farthest left wing economist on the planet cited on Ron Paul Forums.

Incomes in the bottom have risen over that time period. It kind of puts blaming free trade for wealth inequality to rest.

Incomes at the bottom have not risen as fast as inflation, the elite have destroyed the semblance of a free market that we had by using slave labor and money stolen from foreign taxpayers to undermine the American laborer's wages, we are falling into poverty and debt while the elite are stealing from everyone.

[Origanalist]

I know, right?

Ron is in favor of free trade because he believes people's natural proclivities run towards "more freedom".

Free trade and free markets and free minds with a happy and prosperous humanity holding hands and marching off into a bright future.

But clearly, Ron is wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They want bans, and regulations, and wealth redistribution, and silencing of improper and unpolitical opinions, and a disarmed populace, and surveillance, and control, and cops, and forfeiture of property and TSA...and on and on and on.

Marx understood the dark side of human nature much better, and devised a clever system that feeds off that.

Which is why his theories and pronouncements still hold billions of people in his grasp, even after the documented failures, over and over again, and the millions and millions of dead, in his name.

Gee thanks, now I need a drink.

[Origanalist]

Karl Marx believed wrongly that any free market exchange was inherently inequitable and was a step toward revolution. He believed the same thing as trump, that economic liberty destroys the middle class. That's what Marx is really saying in that quote, which is really just a fallacious twist on dannno's argument for tariffs.

The American government, through ACTION, not inaction, has destroyed the American economy. Chinese crap isn't destroying the economy, it's the only way Americans can afford to clean their toilets now, not because of the Chinese government, but because of the American government.

Keep your eye on the ball - regulation, taxation, militarism, castrating the dollar. Producing goods in America is expensive and difficult and that has absolutely nothing to do with China. Tariffs aren't going to increase American production, just decrease consumer buying power.

Out of rep

[undergroundrr]

while the elite are stealing from everyone.

I guess in this case you're talking about the steel and aluminum elite?

[TheCount]

Incomes at the bottom have not risen as fast as inflation, the elite have destroyed the semblance of a free market that we had by using slave labor and money stolen from foreign taxpayers to undermine the American laborer's wages, we are falling into poverty and debt while the elite are stealing from everyone.

... and so we need to centrally manage the economy to make economic outcomes more fair?

[Swordsmyth]

... and so we need to centrally manage the economic to make economic outcomes more fair?

That is how you would try to handle it, but you would fail.

[TheCount]

That is how you would try to handle it, but you would fail.

I don't see how what you're advocating can be seen as anything else.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't see how what you're advocating can be seen as anything else.

Then you are extremely confused, I want government cut at home and I want low tariffs with anybody who doesn't start a trade war with us.

[TheCount]

Then you are extremely confused, I want government cut at home and I want low tariffs with anybody who doesn't start a trade war with us.

If that's true, then why the posts about middle class incomes and "keeping out the weeds and critters"

[Anti Federalist]

Marx supported Free Trade becuase he knew it would bring results like this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/wealth_inequality_mar7.png

Fertile ground to plant the seeds of communism.

Yes, exactly.

He knew it would break down national barriers, economies and cultures, destroy the bourgeoisie and leave them destitute and paying an ever increasing tax burden for a massive government that privatizes gains and socializes losses.

After only a short period of time being subjected to that, they would happily embrace full blown communism and wealth redistribution.

[Swordsmyth]

If that's true, then why the posts about middle class incomes
Middle class incomes are what is protected by shrinking government and defending in trade wars.


and "keeping out the weeds and critters"

Weeds are domestic socialists who must be prevented from carrying out their destructive beliefs with constitutional protections, Critters are foreign predators who are kept out by the military, immigration control and defensive tariffs when subjected to trade war.