Business
Trump’s tariff plan replaces free trade with balanced trade. Globalists hate that.
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
While globalists screech that Trump has descended into ‘madness,’ his ‘Liberation Day’ tariff plan that has shocked global markets is actually rooted in the combination of two economic theories that argue for ‘balanced’ trade over ‘free’ trade.
We are used to seeing the effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the blue-haired, red-faced hysterics who call the President “Orange Hitler.” Yet the introduction of tariffs on “Liberation Day” has seen the constituency of the differently-saned explode in a fit of rage at this “tariff madness.”
As global markets “plunge,” Trump replied to critics that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something.”
“We have been treated so badly by other countries – because we had stupid leadership that allowed this to happen. They took our businesses, they took our money, they took our jobs,” he says, saying American wealth has been effectively “moved” abroad. Trump promised that this “will eventually be straightened out – and our country will be solid and strong again”.
Taking Trump’s medicine
Is his remedy worse than the disease? MSNBC said the crash in global stock markets was the “cascading effect of stupid” tariffs imposed by Trump on U.S. imports. Britain’s Sky News came out swinging too, saying they were “the biggest assault on global trade since World War Two.”
Stocks in the USA, London, Europe, China and across Asia have “plummeted,” as the BBC and others have reported. The U.K.’s Financial Times said “political pressure” resulting from the painful “medicine” will mean “Trump’s tariffs won’t last long.” Yet the liberal bastion of The Guardian dared to suggest there may be a “masterplan” in “shaking up the global economy.”
Looking beyond the hysterical headlines, one writer on SubStack – Tree of Woe – has read the book on “scaled tariffs” which explains the method in Trump’s so-called madness.
1. Trump delivers
Tree of Woe, who recommends the medicine of “muscular Christianity” to combat the sickness of our times, introduces his readers to the fact that Trump campaigned on: “…plac[ing] tariffs that would raise revenue, protect American manufacturing, and restore balanced trade to our global economy.”
This was followed up on April 2 with the imposition of scaled tariffs – called “Liberation Day for American Trade” by Trump:
As Tree of Woe notes, the reaction from the globalist media was exceptional – even for them:
Soon after the unveiling of Trump’s executive order, the forces of neoliberal globalism orchestrated a counterattack of such rhetorical fierceness and economic malignity that it is virtually unparalleled in the history of fiercely malign economic rhetoric.
Anything seen as a threat to the liberal globalist forced consensus is branded as stupid, extremist or destructive. And so it was with the tariffs, whose aim is to replace imbalance and deepening debt with fair trade – and sustainable prosperity.
2. Theoretical basis for tariffs
Woe then shows how a book on economics provides the “theoretical basis for the Liberation Day tariffs.”
The book is called “Balanced Trade: Ending the Unbearable Cost of America’s Trade Deficits.” It was published in 2014 by three brothers – Jesse, Howard and the late Raymond Richman.
Jesse Richman had first published on “The Scaled Tariff” as a method of “producing balanced trade” in 2011.
As Tree of Woe explains, “…the book challenges the orthodox theory that free trade is always beneficial and argues for an alternate policy they call balanced trade.” He quotes the Richman brothers’ own explanation:
For the last several decades, the United States has generally played a cooperative strategy on trade with China and other[s]… U.S. markets have been open to Chinese goods…American leaders selected free trade on the basis of the (false) hope that China would reciprocate by opening its markets to American firms.
‘Free trade’ = American debt
Did China “liberalize” along with the rest of the global system – as Clinton prophesied in the 1990s?
The answer is no. Is this market balanced? The Richmans say, “In return for Chinese products, Americans go ever deeper into debt.”
Debt is a major problem here. The U.S. must refinance a quarter of its national debt – 9 trillion dollars – in 2025 and must do the same for a total of 28 trillion dollars in debt over the next four years. How can Americans reverse this decline?
The aptly named Richmans proposed one solution: “The scaled tariff.”
Extraordinary nonsense?
Does this add up to an answer? U.S. author James Surowiecki is billed as “the man who cracked the math” on Trump’s tariffs. He said the tariffs were “absurd,” and “based on imaginary numbers” – leading to a “woefully simplistic” view of world trade whose aim of balancing it was “an impossible, and not even desirable, goal.”
4. Doing the math on tariffs
Yet it seems it is Mr Surowiecki’s sums which do not add up. As Tree of Woe explains:
Now, let’s compare the Richmans’ approach to the Liberation Day tariff formula that Surowiecki called ‘extraordinary nonsense.’
The Liberation Day tariff formula takes the U.S. trade deficit with that country and dividing it by the value of the country’s exports to the United States, then divides that value in half. For instance, if China had a trade deficit with the US of $298 billion, and exports of $427 billion, then 0.5 x $298 billion / $427 billion) ~ 35%.
Do you see? Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs are calculated with the exact same formula as the Richmans’ scaled tariffs.
Tree of Woe explains:
In fact, if you read Trump’s executive order, it reads as if it was written by the Richmans.
Rarely in the history of presidential policy has a scholars policy formulation been so precisely followed.
He then supplies a little more detail:
The only difference is that Trump has also included a national strategic tariff of 10% as a baseline.
Where does this come from? Again, Tree of Woe shows it is inspired by another economist.
Trump trade policy is simply Ian Fletcher’s Free Trade Doesn’t Work combined with the Richmans’ Balanced Trade!
Why are these two models used by Trump?
The difference between the two is fundamentally a difference in priorities.
Fletcher prioritizes protection of key industry, while the Richmans emphasize reciprocity in trade flows.
5. The goal is balanced trade
So what does this mean in practice?
The Trump Administration has hedged its position – it’s adopted the scaled tariff in full, but with a low 10% national strategic tariff (Fletcher recommended 25%).
What is the overall goal? “Balanced trade,” as Tree of Woe puts it, combined with mutual or reciprocal trade agreements.
Both the Richmans’ book and the Trump Administration’s executive order offer the same answer here. Since the goal is not to achieve ‘free trade,’ it is to achieve balanced trade, therefore the method by which this is achieved is not “reciprocity of tariffs” but reciprocity of trade flows.
Conclusion: Balancing power
The wider foreign policy of the Trump administration is heavily influenced by realists like Dr. Sumantra Maitra, whose central point is that “power begs to be balanced.” These are tariffs which correct imbalance in trade and will reduce or even vanish where a balance is reached.
They punish “unfair” trade:
When trade is balanced, tariffs go to zero (or to 10%, in the Trump version). It’s clean, it’s efficient, and it’s effective.
Thus, Trump’s tariffs are reciprocal tariffs – but what they reciprocate against is unfair trade practice in generally, evidenced by an imbalance of trade, and not tariffs specifically.
Rebalancing of strategic power in trade as in diplomacy is the principle here. This is not only a method to a madness but now resembles a recipe for sanity and prosperity.
So there you have it. Far from being ‘extraordinary nonsense,’ Trump’s trade policy is in fact a careful implementation of trade policies that have been developed and detailed at book-length.
One of the cheerleaders of the chorus of disapproval – James Surowiecki writes for the globalist magazine The Atlantic.
He is the author of a 2005 book called “The Wisdom of Crowds.” In it, he spoke of the wisdom of the many versus that of the few. If balanced trade restores the American dream, why does he stand against the cause of the majority of American people?
Is this a wise crowd he leads? It is certainly shouting the loudest. Yet the numbers behind the tariffs are not imaginary, and it seems strange wisdom indeed to call balanced trade and the reduction of national debt an “insane goal.”
Tree of Woe was asked for comment. This is what he said: “America has not pursued a policy of balanced trade in almost a century. The pressure on the White House to revert back to our ordinary course of business is enormous. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will be able to sustain his tariff policy in the face of opposition from the economic elite. One thing is certain: America will never be great again if we don’t re-industrialize.”
You can read The Tree of Woe’s full report here.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Mark Simon
The APEC Summit in Korea last week marked a pivotal moment for U.S. trade policy, delivering tangible wins for American interests. Solid deals were struck with South Korea, while the U.S. and China de-escalated their long-simmering trade war—a clear positive for President Trump. In the chaotic world of Donald Trump, such normalcy disappointed the news media and foreign policy pundits, who grumbled that the event lacked the drama of a disaster.
Yet, as Trump departed Busan, a deeper transformation unfolded, largely overlooked by observers. In just two days, President Trump orchestrated the most significant shift in U.S. trade strategy since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The real triumph? Widespread acceptance by Asian trading partners of U.S. tariffs as a cornerstone of a reimagined American economic model. This acceptance dismantles nearly a century of unwavering belief in low tariffs as the unassailable path to global prosperity.
Trump’s tariff approach disrupts the post-World War II global trading system, particularly the U.S.-championed free-trade orthodoxy embraced by both parties for over 50 years. By wielding tariffs effectively, Trump challenges the free-market gospel enshrined in the WTO and echoed by World Economic Forum elites and corporate-sponsored Washington think tanks like AEI and CATO, which decry tariffs as heresy.
At APEC, there was no fiery backlash—only quiet nods to moderate tariffs as fixtures in the evolving economic order. Leaders from across the Asia-Pacific assessed the tariffs’ impacts and moved forward without spectacle, signaling a pragmatic pivot toward Trump’s view of international commerce.
Historically, tariff reductions in Asia stemmed from U.S. pressure to open markets. Mercantilist instincts run deep in most Asian governments—except in freewheeling Hong Kong and Singapore. These nations, built on exports inside protected markets, grasp how tariffs can revitalize U.S. manufacturing and bolster federal revenue. Unlike America’s one-sided openness to Asian imports, Trump’s reciprocity feels like overdue fairness.
As a former free-market purist who once decried tariffs, I initially missed their nuance in Trump’s arsenal. Tariffs impose costs, but the genius lies in offsetting them strategically. Trump’s aggressive deregulation, sweeping tax reforms, and drive for rock-bottom domestic energy prices mitigate burdens and generate a net economic surge—one that Asian leaders implicitly endorsed.
This “internal free-market trio” forms the bedrock of the new U.S. paradigm: moderate tariffs generate revenue and incentivize factory repatriation; deregulation slashes red tape; tax cuts keep capital flowing competitively; and abundant, cheap energy undercuts foreign advantages.
Together, they magnetize global investment, upending a century of free-trade dogma. Energy dominance is key. Through promotion of domestic oil, gas, and renewables, Trump has driven U.S. energy costs 30–50% below those in Europe or much of Asia. For capital-intensive sectors like steel, semiconductors, and electric vehicles, this is structural superiority, not subsidy. Layer on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—slashing the corporate rate to 21% and allowing immediate capital expensing—and the math tilts toward U.S. production. Tariffs may raise import prices by 20–30%, but deregulation accelerates cost-cutting, while energy savings absorb part of the hit.
Critics claim tariffs ravaged the economy post-2018, but COVID-19, not tariffs, triggered the downturn. Trump’s initial round was a successful pilot, extended by Biden—yet without Trump’s deregulation and energy surge, the tariffs became un-offset weight. Blanket cost hikes under Biden stifled growth; Trump’s selective offsets ensure expansion.
America’s edge sharpens as rivals falter. Europe, shackled by leftist policies, environmental mandates, and the Ukraine quagmire, hemorrhages capital to the U.S. In North Asia—China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan—demographic headwinds make investments unappealing compared to North America’s burgeoning market. Aging populations and shrinking workforces amplify this disparity.
APEC underscored America as a vibrant, tariff-protected haven primed for onshoring. Amid Asia’s labor crunch, nations view the U.S. as an investment beacon, mirroring Japan’s model: a high-value exporter offloading low-end manufacturing while retaining competitiveness. Summit chatter revealed minimal tariff gripes. China voiced tepid concerns over escalations, but these seemed rhetorical—testing boundaries rather than igniting conflict.
To free-trade zealots, Trump’s heresy is demolishing sacred economic theory. Past protectionists erred by isolating tariffs without cost-lowering measures. Trump integrates them: selective duties paired with deregulation, technological leaps, and economic decentralization beyond urban centers.
In equilibrium, tariffs harvest revenue and reclaim jobs, capitalizing on America’s fiscal and regulatory advantages. Trump’s blueprint restores balance to free trade, honoring national sovereignty while exposing borderless markets’ perils. It proves moderated protectionism can ignite growth, spur innovation, and draw capital—heralding a bolder, self-reliant American century.
Mark Simon is former group director for Next Digital, parent company for Apple Daily, the leading pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong until it was forced to close in 2021.
From the Brownstone Institute
A walk through a dozen convenience stores in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, says a lot about how US nicotine policy actually works. Only about one in eight nicotine-pouch products for sale is legal. The rest are unauthorized—but they’re not all the same. Some are brightly branded, with uncertain ingredients, not approved by any Western regulator, and clearly aimed at impulse buyers. Others—like Sweden’s NOAT—are the opposite: muted, well-made, adult-oriented, and already approved for sale in Europe.
Yet in the United States, NOAT has been told to stop selling. In September 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the company a warning letter for offering nicotine pouches without marketing authorization. That might make sense if the products were dangerous, but they appear to be among the safest on the market: mild flavors, low nicotine levels, and recyclable paper packaging. In Europe, regulators consider them acceptable. In America, they’re banned. The decision looks, at best, strange—and possibly arbitrary.
What the Market Shows
My October 2025 audit was straightforward. I visited twelve stores and recorded every distinct pouch product visible for sale at the counter. If the item matched one of the twenty ZYN products that the FDA authorized in January, it was counted as legal. Everything else was counted as illegal.
Two of the stores told me they had recently received FDA letters and had already removed most illegal stock. The other ten stores were still dominated by unauthorized products—more than 93 percent of what was on display. Across all twelve locations, about 12 percent of products were legal ZYN, and about 88 percent were not.
The illegal share wasn’t uniform. Many of the unauthorized products were clearly high-nicotine imports with flashy names like Loop, Velo, and Zimo. These products may be fine, but some are probably high in contaminants, and a few often with very high nicotine levels. Others were subdued, plainly meant for adult users. NOAT was a good example of that second group: simple packaging, oat-based filler, restrained flavoring, and branding that makes no effort to look “cool.” It’s the kind of product any regulator serious about harm reduction would welcome.
Enforcement Works
To the FDA’s credit, enforcement does make a difference. The two stores that received official letters quickly pulled their illegal stock. That mirrors the agency’s broader efforts this year: new import alerts to detain unauthorized tobacco products at the border (see also Import Alert 98-06), and hundreds of warning letters to retailers, importers, and distributors.
But effective enforcement can’t solve a supply problem. The list of legal nicotine-pouch products is still extremely short—only a narrow range of ZYN items. Adults who want more variety, or stores that want to meet that demand, inevitably turn to gray-market suppliers. The more limited the legal catalog, the more the illegal market thrives.
Why the NOAT Decision Appears Bizarre
The FDA’s own actions make the situation hard to explain. In January 2025, it authorized twenty ZYN products after finding that they contained far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and could help adult smokers switch. That was progress. But nine months later, the FDA has approved nothing else—while sending a warning letter to NOAT, arguably the least youth-oriented pouch line in the world.
The outcome is bad for legal sellers and public health. ZYN is legal; a handful of clearly risky, high-nicotine imports continue to circulate; and a mild, adult-market brand that meets European safety and labeling rules is banned. Officially, NOAT’s problem is procedural—it lacks a marketing order. But in practical terms, the FDA is punishing the very design choices it claims to value: simplicity, low appeal to minors, and clean ingredients.
This approach also ignores the differences in actual risk. Studies consistently show that nicotine pouches have far fewer toxins than cigarettes and far less variability than many vapes. The biggest pouch concerns are uneven nicotine levels and occasional traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, depending on manufacturing quality. The serious contamination issues—heavy metals and inconsistent dosage—belong mostly to disposable vapes, particularly the flood of unregulated imports from China. Treating all “unauthorized” products as equally bad blurs those distinctions and undermines proportional enforcement.
A Better Balance: Enforce Upstream, Widen the Legal Path
My small Montgomery County survey suggests a simple formula for improvement.
First, keep enforcement targeted and focused on suppliers, not just clerks. Warning letters clearly change behavior at the store level, but the biggest impact will come from auditing distributors and importers, and stopping bad shipments before they reach retail shelves.
Second, make compliance easy. A single-page list of authorized nicotine-pouch products—currently the twenty approved ZYN items—should be posted in every store and attached to distributor invoices. Point-of-sale systems can block barcodes for anything not on the list, and retailers could affirm, once a year, that they stock only approved items.
Third, widen the legal lane. The FDA launched a pilot program in September 2025 to speed review of new pouch applications. That program should spell out exactly what evidence is needed—chemical data, toxicology, nicotine release rates, and behavioral studies—and make timely decisions. If products like NOAT meet those standards, they should be authorized quickly. Legal competition among adult-oriented brands will crowd out the sketchy imports far faster than enforcement alone.
The Bottom Line
Enforcement matters, and the data show it works—where it happens. But the legal market is too narrow to protect consumers or encourage innovation. The current regime leaves a few ZYN products as lonely legal islands in a sea of gray-market pouches that range from sensible to reckless.
The FDA’s treatment of NOAT stands out as a case study in inconsistency: a quiet, adult-focused brand approved in Europe yet effectively banned in the US, while flashier and riskier options continue to slip through. That’s not a public-health victory; it’s a missed opportunity.
If the goal is to help adult smokers move to lower-risk products while keeping youth use low, the path forward is clear: enforce smartly, make compliance easy, and give good products a fair shot. Right now, we’re doing the first part well—but failing at the second and third. It’s time to fix that.
Author
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
In his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Carney speech highlights how easily newsrooms are played by politicians
-
Business2 days ago
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
International2 days agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
MAiD2 days agoStudy promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims
-
Business2 days agoCanada has given $109 million to Communist China for ‘sustainable development’ since 2015
-
Internet2 days agoMusk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring
-
Crime1 day agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
-
Business2 days agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To