Two days ago I made the call that Trump would IMPOSE TARIFFS ON EUROPE

and I cited the auto industry as the chief reason.

Two days ago I made the call that Trump would IMPOSE TARIFFS ON EUROPE and I cited the auto industry as the chief reason.

Here is that article from two days ago

---

---

I am not here to commend Trump or praise him but my prediction was fairly substantial given Trump had just: (I lean with Ludwig Von Mises on this topic)

-imposed tariffs on steel (regardless of originating source country)
-imposed tariffs on aluminum (regardless of originating source country)
-imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico (USA’s largest trade partner)
-imposed 25% tariffs on Canada

I will now go further in my analysis in three bullet points below:

• Gold will continue to soar as gold always favors uncertainty

• Silver will finally catch up but not tomorrow

• Mexico will fight back with gigantic severance taxes on silver, gold, copper mines increasing the price of physical silver and gold

The newly imposed 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and Europe, alongside expanded steel and aluminum tariffs, will disrupt North American supply chains, raise consumer prices, and trigger job losses across industries.

In the U.S., inflation is projected to rise by 1.3 percentage points, with over 400,000 jobs at risk if retaliation occurs. Canada and Mexico face deeper contractions, losing up to 2.2 million and 510,000 jobs respectively under retaliatory scenarios, while wages decline by 4.9% and 7%.

Steel and aluminum tariffs will increase U.S. import costs by $22 billion, burdening construction, automotive, and manufacturing sectors with higher material expenses. Retaliatory measures from trading partners threaten to escalate into a broader trade war, further depressing global growth.

These tariffs also undermine cross-border supply chain integration critical for industries like automotive manufacturing, where components cross borders multiple times during production. While U.S. metals producers may benefit from higher prices, downstream industries face margin pressures, potentially stalling infrastructure projects and reducing economic competitiveness

WWLVMT

What Would Ludwig Von Mises Think

Ludwig von Mises's Perspective on Tariffs: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis

The imposition of tariffs—taxes on imported goods—has long been a contentious issue in economic policy. To understand how Ludwig von Mises, a foundational figure of the Austrian School of Economics, would critique modern tariffs, we must examine his theoretical framework, historical precedents, and the inherent contradictions between protectionism and free-market principles. Mises’s opposition to tariffs stems from their distortion of price signals, their temporary privileging of special interests, and their broader corrosive effects on economic coordination and consumer welfare.

Mises’s Praxeological Framework and the Role of Prices

The Function of Prices in a Free Market

For Mises, prices are not arbitrary numbers but emergent phenomena resulting from the voluntary interactions of individuals in a market economy. These prices encapsulate the subjective valuations of countless participants, reflecting the relative scarcity of resources and consumer preferences. In Human Action, Mises emphasized that prices act as guides for rational economic calculation, enabling entrepreneurs to allocate resources efficiently across time and space. When governments impose tariffs, they artificially alter these price signals, creating a disconnect between consumer demand and production decisions.

Distortion of Capital Allocation

Tariffs disrupt the delicate balance of supply and demand by inflating the cost of imported goods. For example, a 25% tariff on steel raises input costs for industries reliant on this material, such as automotive manufacturing and construction15. Mises would argue that this distortion leads to malinvestment—capital flowing into protected sectors at the expense of more productive uses. Over time, the misallocation of resources reduces overall economic efficiency, as seen in the U.S. steel industry’s struggles to compete globally despite decades of protectionist measures.

The Ephemeral "Boon" of Tariff Privileges

Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Costs

Mises critiqued tariffs as a form of political privilege that temporarily benefits specific industries but ultimately dissipates due to market forces. In Human Action, he noted that protected industries initially enjoy higher profits, attracting new entrants until competition erodes these gains. For instance, Trump’s 2018 steel tariffs briefly boosted domestic producers but led to retaliatory measures, supply chain bottlenecks, and $22 billion in increased costs for downstream industries. Mises would view such outcomes as inevitable, as tariffs create artificial advantages that cannot withstand market realities.

Consumer Sovereignty Undermined

A core tenet of Austrian economics is consumer sovereignty—the idea that individuals’ preferences should dictate production. Tariffs subvert this principle by shielding domestic industries from foreign competition, forcing consumers to pay higher prices for inferior goods. For example, tariffs on Chinese imports during the Trump administration raised costs for electronics and machinery, disproportionately affecting low-income households. Mises would condemn this coercion, arguing that it transfers wealth from the many to a politically connected few.

The Economic Calculation Problem and Protectionism

Central Planning in Disguise

Mises’s economic calculation problem asserts that socialist systems fail because they lack price signals to allocate resources efficiently. While tariffs are not full-scale socialism, they represent a form of centralized interference that similarly disrupts market coordination. By altering the relative prices of goods, tariffs prevent entrepreneurs from accurately gauging consumer demand or optimizing production processes. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 exacerbated the Great Depression by stifling international trade and triggering retaliatory measures. Mises would liken such policies to socialist planning, as both substitute bureaucratic diktats for decentralized market signals.

Retaliation and Global Trade Fragmentation

Modern tariffs often provoke retaliatory measures, fragmenting global supply chains and reducing overall trade volumes. Mises warned that protectionism fosters economic nationalism, undermining the division of labor that drives prosperity. The 2018–2019 U.S.-China trade war, which reduced bilateral trade by $100 billion, exemplifies this dynamic. By disrupting cross-border cooperation, tariffs diminish the productivity gains from specialization—a cornerstone of Misesian economics8.

Historical Precedents and Austrian Critiques

The Smoot-Hawley Debacle

The 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff offers a stark lesson in the dangers of protectionism. By raising duties on over 20,000 imported goods, the law triggered global retaliation, collapsing international trade by 66% between 1929 and 19347. Mises would attribute this disaster to the ignorance of policymakers who ignored price signals and consumer welfare in favor of special interests. The resulting unemployment and economic contraction validated his warnings about government intervention.

Modern Tariffs and Stock Market Volatility

Recent research links tariffs to stock market instability. For instance, rumors of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff’s passage coincided with the 1929 Wall Street crash, erasing $30 billion in market value. Similarly, Trump’s 2018 tariffs caused a 6% drop in the S&P 500 as investors anticipated higher costs and reduced corporate earnings. Mises would interpret such volatility as evidence of tariffs’ destructive unpredictability, which discourages long-term investment and innovation.

Conclusion: Mises’s Uncompromising Opposition to Tariffs

Ludwig von Mises would condemn tariffs as a self-defeating form of coercion that privileges narrow interests at the expense of societal welfare. By distorting prices, inciting retaliation, and fostering malinvestment, tariffs undermine the very mechanisms that enable economic coordination and growth. Historical examples—from Smoot-Hawley to modern trade wars—validate his critique, demonstrating how protectionism stifles innovation, impoverishes consumers, and destabilizes markets. For Mises, the solution lies not in tariffs or government intervention but in unfettered free trade, where prices reflect true scarcity and consumer preferences guide production. As he famously declared, “The essence of capitalism is mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses”—a goal achievable only through markets unencumbered by political privilege

Jon Little conclusion:

1. Get your hands on physical Gold and Silver ASAP

2. Buy Andean Precious Metals, Aya Gold & Silver, Kuya Silver, Summa Silver, Dolly Varden Silver

3. Andean Precious Metals: ANPMF

4. Aya Gold & Silver: AYASF

5. Kuya Silver: KUYAF

6. Summa Silver: SSVRF

7. Dolly Varden Silver: DOLLF

8. Buy US based oil companies like HESS

---

our opinions are not our sponsors

editorial is separate from promotions


not financial advice