All changed since 2016 Brexit and USEXIT, including the role of tariff, which in this case raises the question: The nature of tariff in a liberal democracy and in temporary authoritarianism: Can you see the difference?
If yes, indicate it in few words
Note: this is an academic question, not a political one.
In liberal democracies, tariffs are generally shaped by transparent legislative processes and often reflect public and interest group influence, while in temporary authoritarian regimes, tariff decisions can be arbitrary and politically motivated.
In liberal democracies tariffs are science based economic tools used to protect and/or advance the best interest of the country/of the true majority, in temporary authoritarianism tariffes are non-science based economic tools used to proect and/or advance the best interest of the temporary authoritarianism movement/of the true minority, so even if the country loses due to non-science based tariff policy temporary authoritarianism can be a winner. The real bit for liberal democracies will come when temporary authoritarianism becomes permanent authoritarianism from within.
You will find the following articles interesting:
The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically
Article The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme libe...
Rethinking democracy 109: Temporary authoritarianism versus normal liberal democracy competition under perceived capture and fully captured independent legal systems: When we should not expect a peaceful transfer of power and when not to expect a transfer of power at all?
Article Rethinking democracy 109: Temporary authoritarianism versus ...
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
Article Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by st...
Estimados Chuck A Arize y Lucio Muñoz, su discusión sobre la naturaleza de los aranceles en diferentes sistemas políticos es pertinente y revela una profunda verdad. Como doctor en economía y negocios internacionales de pensamiento progresista, sostengo que la diferencia no solo es discernible, sino crucial para entender las implicaciones económicas y sociales.
En una democracia liberal, los aranceles teóricamente son herramientas de política económica basadas en evidencia, diseñadas para proteger industrias estratégicas o corregir desequilibrios, buscando el "mejor interés del país" o de la "verdadera mayoría", como señala Lucio. Se supone que los procesos son transparentes y sujetos a debate legislativo, reflejando el "consenso" público y de grupos de interés, como dice Chuck. Sin embargo, incluso en democracias, pueden ser capturados por intereses particulares.
En un autoritarismo temporal, o lo que podríamos llamar un populismo nacionalista con tintes autoritarios, los aranceles se convierten en instrumentos políticos y discrecionales, a menudo desvinculados de un análisis económico riguroso. Aquí, el objetivo es "proyectar y/o promover el mejor interés del movimiento autoritario temporal/de la verdadera minoría", como bien apunta Lucio. La evidencia de la administración Trump es ilustrativa: los aranceles se impusieron a menudo por decreto ejecutivo, buscando capitalizar el resentimiento de bases electorales específicas afectadas por la desindustrialización. Por ejemplo, en 2018, la administración Trump impuso aranceles del 25% al acero y del 10% al aluminio, justificándolos por "seguridad nacional", no por una evaluación económica tradicional (Fuente: Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2018).
La consecuencia es que, aunque el país pueda sufrir pérdidas económicas, el líder o movimiento puede obtener ganancias políticas. La guerra comercial con China, si bien no redujo sustancialmente el déficit comercial global de EE. UU. (que en 2023 se mantuvo en aproximadamente $948 mil millones de dólares, según el Bureau of Economic Analysis), sí elevó los costos para los consumidores estadounidenses y generó incertidumbre en la inversión. Un estudio de la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso de EE. UU. (CBO, 2019) estimó que los aranceles de Trump reducirían el PIB real de EE. UU. en un 0.3% para 2020. Pese a esto, la narrativa de "proteger empleos" resonó en su base.
El riesgo que señala Lucio, de que el "autoritarismo temporal" se convierta en "permanente", es una advertencia crucial. Cuando las políticas económicas se desvinculan de la racionalidad técnica y se subsumen a la retórica política y la consolidación del poder, se erosiona la gobernanza democrática y se abre la puerta a un sistema donde los aranceles se usan como arma para la dominación y no para el desarrollo equitativo. La transparencia, la rendición de cuentas y la primacía del bien común deben ser el pilar de cualquier política arancelaria en una democracia liberal.
Andres, thank you for taking time to write. You articulate it well the core of my comment and call, done with the intention to go beyond the comment from Chuck to clarify the differences between the same tools within a liberal democracy model and a temporary anti democracy model borned from within.
To bring the point more into focus I am sharing here two pictures depicting the death of democray from within, in general and in the USA, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for the death of liberal democracies from within to take place.
Tariff nature in liberal democracy versus temporary authoritarianism differs in drivers and constraints: liberal democracies typically set tariffs under political scrutiny, interest-group lobbying, and constrained by rules, transparency, and trade commitments, while temporary authoritarian regimes may use tariffs more opportunistically for strategic protection, rent extraction, or patronage with fewer accountability constraints — though both systems can produce protectionist outcomes depending on political economy incentives.
Chuck, you can see the difference also if you look at the issue as moral vrs amoral liberal democracies or as normal liberal democracies/normal democractic outcomes vrs extrem liberal democracies/extreme democratic outcomes, but only if you think outside the box....
Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?
Article Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can...
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Article Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal l...
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
The nature of tariffs in liberal democracies vs temporary authoritarianism: in liberal democracies tariffs are usually debated openly, justified by political-economy arguments (protection of infant industries, redistributive politics, or environmental policy via carbon/tariff adjustments) and implemented within institutional constraints and electoral accountability; under temporary authoritarianism tariffs can be used instrumentally and rapidly—to reward cronies, control markets, or enforce import substitution—without the same transparency or rule-of-law checks, producing policy that is quicker but less predictable and often more distortionary.
In short Chuck, one is science based so it uses academic facts to justify it and the other is non-science based so needs ALTERNATIVE ACADEMIC FACTS to justify polity if needed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts