Bishop Richard and George, the Abiscoridan sage, enlightened us with their conversation on tariffs…
Apparently, the President of the United States has concluded—despite overwhelming historical evidence, economic consensus, and the entirety of human experience to the contrary—that tariffs are a great idea. And he’s tossing them around like beads from a Mardi Gras float—except instead of bringing joy, they just slap you in the face and somehow leave you with less money.
Naturally, people have questions about how tariffs work and how exactly they’re supposed to “Make America Great Again.”
Here at the Cult of Brighter Days, we aim to please. So, we will temporarily don the Mantle of the Dull Lemon, along with the Mitre of the Step-Popehood of Northeast Wyoming and the Great Plains, to provide some answers. Let’s start with an easy one.
Q: Is it two R’s or two F’s? Or both?
A: Good question! I always have to think about it, try one, see that it’s wrong, and then try the other. Sometimes I was right the first time, but usually not. The only thing I’m always sure of is that it’s not both.
Q: So… are you going to answer the question?
A: Oh! Right. It’s tariff—two F’s. One for “Failure,” one for “Futility.”
Q: What is a tariff?
A: It’s a tax. Specifically, a tax on goods imported into a country from a foreign nation. Think of it as the economic equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot and then charging your other foot for medical expenses.
Technically, Congress could impose tariffs on exports too, but the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids them from doing so. This was one of the few things the Founding Fathers agreed upon after their 1787 “Let’s Argue in Wigs” Convention.
Q: If Congress has the power to create tariffs, why is the President deciding them?
A: Excellent question! Congress, in its infinite wisdom (pause for laughter), at some point decided, “Hey, let’s just hand this decision-making power to the President so we don’t have to deal with it.” And thus, here we are.
Much like giving a toddler the keys to a backhoe, it was technically legal, but deeply, deeply unwise.
Q: So it’s legal, then? What’s the big deal?
A: Legal? Yes. Intelligent? No.
This is like if you legally could set your own house on fire, and then justified it by saying, “Well, at least the neighbors will be warm.”
Q: Are tariffs a bad idea?
A: Oh, sweet summer child. They are the Ugg boots of economic policy—briefly trendy, universally regrettable.
Historically, tariffs have been about as effective as yelling at your toaster for burning your toast. The idea is that by making foreign goods more expensive, people will buy domestic products instead. This assumes two things:
- The U.S. actually produces the things we need at the same scale and cost efficiency.
- Other countries won’t retaliate by doing the exact same thing to our exports.
Spoiler alert: Neither assumption has ever been true.
Q: But isn’t protecting domestic industries a good thing?
A: Ah, yes, the age-old dream of economic isolationism. Because nothing spells success like artificially supporting inefficient industries while jacking up prices for consumers.
Historically, countries that tried this approach ended up as economic cautionary tales. Switzerland focused on making really good chocolate and watches. The U.S. has focused on making high-fructose corn syrup and increasingly fragile egos. When you artificially support inefficient industries with tariffs, all you’re really doing is making sure your citizens overpay for mediocre goods.
Also, there’s the little issue of retaliation.
Q: Retaliation? You mean like Canada getting mad at us?
A: Exactly. When the U.S. slaps tariffs on Canada, Canada slaps tariffs on us. And unlike us, Canada thinks these things through.
Did you notice which products they’re targeting? Kentucky bourbon, South Dakota sorghum, Montana beef—all from Republican strongholds. Canada isn’t just retaliating; they’re weaponizing tariffs as political headaches.
You have to admire the pettiness. It’s almost poetic.
Q: But doesn’t this hurt Canada too?
A: Barely. Canada has options. They’ll sell their goods elsewhere. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with higher prices and fewer trade partners. Imagine burning down your neighbor’s house because you’re mad at their dog barking—and then realizing you lived in a duplex.
Q: This all sounds familiar. Has something like this happened before?
A: Oh, yes. In 1929, the stock market crashed. Then, in a stunning display of economic illiteracy, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, thinking that making imported goods more expensive would somehow fix things.
It did not. It backfired catastrophically, making the Great Depression worse. But sure, let’s do it again. Maybe this time the economic laws of reality will take a day off.
Q: But isn’t inflation already bad?
A: Yes! And tariffs make it worse!
This administration ran on lowering inflation, and yet here we are. If you were hoping that Walmart and Target might lower their prices soon, good luck—Target has already announced price increases because of these tariffs.
Q: Surely someone has a defense for these tariffs?
A: If they do, I haven’t found it. And trust me, I looked.
Farmers? Furious.
Auto manufacturers? Livid.
Consumers? Confused but increasingly broke.
Even the President himself admitted there will be “pain.” If someone could explain why we should all gleefully line up for voluntary financial pain, I’d love to hear it.
Q: So what do we do about it?
A: Call your representatives. Call your senators. Call everyone’s representatives. Call the Pope, just for fun.
But honestly, don’t expect much. You could also try calling the White House, but do you really think facts are going to start mattering now?
Look, I don’t want to discourage you, but at this point, the people in charge seem fully committed to riding this economic disaster into the sun. So by all means, keep fighting—but don’t be shocked when they double down instead of course-correcting.
And remember:
Failure is not an option. It’s mandatory.