View this post on the web at [link removed]

A version of this piece [ [link removed] ] was previously published at Bastiat’s Window [ [link removed] ].
There is often a wide gulf between (1) what Donald Trump says and (2) what Donald Trump does, but until now, scientists have been unable to ascertain (3) what Donald Trump thinks and how far across the gulf those thoughts might be from his words and deeds. Soon, however, a team of nautical engineers, neurologists, psychologists and economists hopes to employ a nearly forgotten 1960s technology to seek an answer.
In the early 1960s, the U.S. government’s Combined Miniature Deterrent Forces shrank a small submarine, the Proteus, and a team of naval and medical personnel to “about the size of a microbe” and injected them into the bloodstream of Dr. Jan Benes to remove an inoperable blood clot from his brain. This historic achievement was immortalized in the film “Fantastic Voyage [ [link removed] ]” (1966). Now, a team of experts is preparing to resurrect that technology, shrink themselves to microscopic size and navigate the convolutions of Donald Trump’s cerebral cortex. (To the extreme regret of many, Raquel Welch is no longer available for the Fantastic Voyage 2025 project.)
The team will explore the question, “Why does Donald Trump think that tariffs are a good idea?” He says tariffs will boost the American economy, but that argument was thoroughly discredited at least 249 years ago by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations.” As I wrote [ [link removed] ] in my role as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in 1997:
Economists, famous for disagreeing with one another, are overwhelmingly in favor of free trade—at least in most circumstances. Beginning in 1776 with Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” many of the greatest works of economics have defended the flow of goods and services across international borders. The economist Frank Taussig wrote in 1905, “...the doctrine of free trade, however widely rejected in the world of politics, holds its own in the sphere of the intellect.”
But, I continued:
Two centuries and a couple of decades haven’t been enough to negate either the political rejection or the intellectual acceptance of free trade. The contest between free trade and protectionism is probably permanent.
As the scientific team members prepare to navigate and scuba dive through Donald Trump’s cerebrospinal fluid in search of answers, they have developed six hypotheses as to why the 47th president enthuses over tariffs. For national security reasons, the team members are identified here only as Drs. A**, B**, C**, D**, E** and F**. Here are their theories:
THEORY A. Trump actually believes that the imposition of tariffs on imports will, as a general principle, increase the total wealth (or income) of Americans. Dr. A** notes that from the early 19th century till the 1930s, Whigs and Republicans from Henry Clay to Abraham Lincoln to William McKinley to Herbert Hoover subscribed to this illogical but maddeningly persistent viewpoint. But theory and observation demonstrate conclusively that tariffs unambiguously reduce national wealth. (George Mason University Professor Don Boudreaux’s blog provides a veritable encyclopedia [ [link removed] ] on the theory and history of tariffs.)
Plus, implementation and administration of tariffs have always been marked by corrosive political machinations, bureaucratic empowerment, rank corruption and angels-on-pins legalisms. In 1893, for example, tariff definitions required the Supreme Court to engage in hair-splitting scholasticism over whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables [ [link removed] ].
THEORY B. Trump has read economic journal articles proffering peculiar and highly specific theoretical assumptions under which tariffs would be wealth-increasing. Dr. B** suspects that Trump is especially impressed by Harry Johnson’s “Economic Expansion and International Trade” (1955) and Jagdish Bhagwati’s “Immiserizing Growth: A Geometrical Note” (1958). Dr. B** believes that, based on these two papers, Trump devised an algebraic proof showing that carefully crafted tariffs could, under certain circumstances, increase national wealth. Unfortunately, soon after offering this hypothesis, Dr. B** left the Fantastic Voyage 2025 project and is now receiving round-the-clock medical attention.
THEORY C. Trump understands that tariffs would reduce the overall wealth of Americans but believes they would increase wealth in certain sectors and localities. Dr. C** argues that this idea has some logic, albeit of a short-term, self-destructive, beggar-thy-neighbor kind. Across American history, governments have applied tariffs to specific industries (e.g., steel) to protect them from foreign competition. Two decades ago, for example, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt supported tariffs because benefits would accrue to certain constituencies, albeit harming the overall American economy.
But these tariffs, in addition to being unfair, are also shortsighted. In the mid-20th century, tariffs and other trade restrictions benefited the steel mills of Ohio and Pennsylvania for a while, but they ultimately left the mills in those states unable to compete and poised for catastrophe when political support for trade restrictions finally collapsed. Tariffs can also set the stage for interregional strife. Tariffs that helped New England’s mills and harmed the South’s cotton producers exacerbated pressures for secession in 1861.
THEORY D. Trump heard about tariffs and thinks they’re just kind of cool and that they will bother people he can’t stand. Dr. D** believes this is the likeliest explanation and says all the other team members acknowledged that possibility.
THEORY E. Trump understands that tariffs would reduce the overall wealth of Americans but believes their imposition would benefit America’s national security and other political (not economic) variables. Dr. E** noted that Trump correctly grasps that high tariffs on Chinese goods could conceivably weaken that country’s economy (and therefore its military threat) by dampening its sales of rare-earth metals and other strategic goods. However, Dr. E** fears that Trump does not understand that tariffs are a blunt and uncertain tool for achieving such goals and might well weaken America’s economy (and, hence, military capacity) even more than they harm Chinese interests.
THEORY F. Trump understands that actually imposing tariffs reduces America’s wealth but believes that threatening to impose tariffs is an effective way to force other countries to take actions that will improve America’s wealth and well-being. Dr. F** notes that the mere threat of a tariff apparently forced Colombia’s president to accept deportees whom he initially barred from the country. (Trump reportedly pulled off this feat by cellphone while playing a few holes of golf [ [link removed] ].) Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico but delayed doing so (his administration claims) in exchange for promises by those two countries to work on reducing cross-border flows of fentanyl into the U.S. As with Dr. E**’s hypothesis, there is some logic to this use of threatened tariffs. It’s analogous to nuclear weapons, however—effective as a threat but self-destructive and counterproductive if actually used.
The research team members summed up their arguments in three ways. (1) The macroeconomic arguments for tariffs are nil. They won’t boost America’s overall economy. (2) The microeconomic arguments are valid but divisive. They might help some sectors and regions while harming others even more. (3) There is some logic to the noneconomic arguments. But tariffs are clumsy instruments for achieving political goals and create long-term policy risks.
Jokes aside, this article poses a genuine question, not a mere rhetorical slam. Trump comes from the universe of New York real estate developers, where bluster and bluff are coin of the realm. Would he actually use military force to obtain control over Greenland and/or the Panama Canal? Does he really imagine Canada as the 51st state? Would he really seek to impose American suzerainty over the Gaza Strip? Or are these merely chaos-inducing non sequiturs designed to throw adversaries off balance? Having grown up around real estate developers and having lived in New York City, I honestly can’t say.
Trump said in his second inaugural address that “President McKinley made our country very rich through tariffs and through talent.” Does he actually believe that tariffs make America richer? If so, he’s wrong but not at all alone in that belief. Or does he merely see the threat of tariffs as a tactic for cowing other national leaders and abruptly moving Overton windows?
The only question is which of these six lines of reasoning causes Donald Trump to wax lyrical about an idea that has been debunked for a quarter of a millennium. Unless you have navigated through Trump’s brain passageways in a microscopic submarine, your guess is no better than mine.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?