Tom Purcell: No escape from trade wars’ effects |
Tom Purcell, Columnist

Tom Purcell: No escape from trade wars’ effects

Tom Purcell
A bit more dear.

The trade wars are hitting me where it hurts.

One of my few respites from these rough-and-tumble times is to sit by an autumn bonfire with good friends, a Leaf and Bean cigar and some fine Scotch whisky.

But, reports a Forbes columnist, the U.S. government announced last week a “25% tariff on all single-malt Scotch whisky imports, as part of a wider set of tariffs aimed to punish the European Union.”

As of Oct. 18, Scotch whisky — and Parmesan cheese from Italy and olives from France and Spain, tasty goods I also enjoy — will be more expensive.

Regrettably, that means I have to pay attention to government trade actions — which is about as fun as spending hours watching spirits be distilled.

The Forbes piece says the origin of my costly-hooch woes dates back to 2004, when the U.S. got steamed that the EU was subsidizing Airbus’ development of its A380 and A350 planes, which made competing harder for America’s Boeing.

To retaliate, the U.S. raised tariffs on the EU, which caused the EU to raise tariffs on, among other things, American bourbon, which led the U.S. to raise its tariff on Scotch whisky.

I’m certainly no expert on tariff diplomacy — I found trying to grasp Economics 101 at Penn State unpleasant — but it seems much like a playground fight among children:

“You’re a meanie!”

“You’re a dodo head!”



Investor’s Business Daily explains that tariffs used to be how America paid its bills — until 1913, with the introduction of the income tax (and later, payroll taxes).

The average U.S. tariff then fell until 1930, when — early in the Great Depression — the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act hiked the average U.S. tariff by about 50%.

This protectionist action spurred retaliation. IBD says “economists generally argue that Smoot-Hawley helped dry up global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression.”

Since then, tariffs had steadily trended lower — until recently.

“Before Trump took office, half of U.S. industrial imports entered the country duty-free, with no tariff imposed,” IBD says. “In 2016, the average U.S. tariff rate was 1.6% across all products, according to the World Bank. … After Trump’s escalation of tariffs in May 2019, the average U.S. trade-weighted tariff rate stood at about 7.5%, according to a Deutsche Bank calculation.”

China, no stranger to unfair trade tactics, is a primary target.

“In 2018, Trump became the first president to systematically threaten and impose tariffs to try to reshape the flow of trade,” IBD says. “Trump’s stated purpose for new and higher tariffs? Shrink the 2017 U.S. trade deficit of $566 billion, boost U.S. production and increase manufacturing jobs.”

Now we’re in a bona fide trade war — which isn’t going well. The trade deficit is getting worse, not better. Americans are paying more for low-cost imported goods they depend on. And American farmers, who depend on exports to pay their bills, are getting hurt as China retaliates.

It’s a game of “chicken” that’s imposing uncertainty and pain on global markets, including ours.

I don’t know how it’s going to turn out. But I do know these stresses and strains get more troubling by the day.

They’re so troubling that I can’t even escape them by sitting by an autumn bonfire with good friends, a Leaf and Bean cigar and some fine, though ever-more-costly, Scotch whisky.

Freelance writer Tom Purcell of Library is author of “Misadventures of a 1970s Childhood.” Visit him on the web at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.