By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is advising against immediate retaliation to President Trump’s newly announced tariffs, urging global partners to avoid escalation. These tariffs include a 10% baseline tariff on all goods, alongside significantly higher rates on specific countries such as China (34%), the EU (20%), Japan (24%), and Taiwan (32%), with a 25% tariff on foreign automobiles commencing at midnight. Bessent emphasizes that retaliatory measures historically disadvantage surplus countries, advising a measured response. The 10% tariff takes effect Saturday, with reciprocal tariffs beginning April 9th.
Read the original article here
The suggestion that countries should “take a deep breath” and not retaliate against US tariffs feels incredibly tone-deaf. It’s akin to advising someone enduring abuse to simply endure it further, hoping the abuser will eventually tire. The underlying implication is that retaliation only serves to escalate the situation, implying a kind of moral equivalence between the initial aggression and the response to it. This ignores the power imbalance inherent in the situation.
The argument that deficit countries historically have an advantage in trade disputes is deeply flawed and incredibly short-sighted. It assumes a static economic landscape, failing to account for the complexities of a globalized economy and the interconnected nature of modern trade relationships. To claim that a deficit country inherently holds an advantage fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics at play; it implies a passive acceptance of exploitation. It’s a bizarre justification for initiating a trade war and then suggesting inaction in the face of countermeasures.
This perspective completely ignores the potential for long-term damage inflicted by tariffs, not just on the targeted countries but also on the initiator. The idea that a country can repeatedly initiate economic aggression without facing any consequences is a dangerous delusion. Furthermore, applying this logic to a situation where tariffs are imposed on numerous countries simultaneously is simply reckless; the economic impact becomes magnified exponentially, potentially triggering a global economic downturn. The claim of advantage for the deficit country fails to account for this massive difference in scale.
The advice to simply “take it” is not only economically naive but morally repugnant. It’s a call for passive acceptance of unfair practices, a betrayal of national interests, and an abdication of responsibility by those in power. The implication that affected nations should simply absorb the economic blows inflicted upon them is unacceptable and reeks of arrogance and entitlement.
The call for calm ignores the inherent unfairness of the situation. The US initiated aggressive trade actions and now wants other countries to remain passive in the face of these provocations. This isn’t a fair fight; it’s economic bullying, and the response should reflect that. The suggestion of a “deep breath” before responding directly translates to allowing the bullying to continue unchecked.
The idea that retaliatory tariffs will only lead to further escalation overlooks the inherent power dynamic. If countries don’t push back against this economic aggression, it sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging further abusive behavior. The response should be proportionate and firm, not meek and subservient. The initial aggression should not be met with passivity, but with a strong and resolute defense of national economic interests.
The advice against retaliation is incredibly dangerous, encouraging a cycle of unchecked aggression. It’s a simplistic view that overlooks the complexity of international trade relations and the potential for escalation. Furthermore, it ignores the long-term consequences of accepting unfair practices and the need for countries to protect their own economic well-being. A failure to push back will only embolden the aggressors.
In short, telling nations to refrain from retaliatory measures against economic aggression is not only bad economic policy, but also ethically untenable. It’s akin to telling the victim of a crime to simply accept their fate. The very suggestion is a symptom of the arrogance and misplaced confidence fueling the initial aggression. The world should not accept this kind of bullying, and retaliation is a necessary response to defend against unfair economic practices.