The Very Stable Genius has no consistent set of economic principles - today's edition

  . . . which means his successes, such as the great jobs report released this morning (unemployment at an 18-year low) are of a hit-and-miss nature rather than being the result of a coherent vision.

Lowering taxes, of course, is always good, and the current employment picture is a direct result of the fundamental principle that people and organizations ought to be able to keep all their money save what government can convincingly justify taking from them. When they keep their own money, they tend to put it to productive use.

But these tariffs slapped on European, Canadian and Mexican goods are about as boneheaded a move as could be asked for.  It is already catalyzing what looks for all the world like a trade war.

The EU responded by saying it will impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods and take the US to the World Trade Organisation’s “trade court” to get Mr Trump’s policy declared illegal.

Britain branded the move as "absurd" with Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, signalling the UK could take retaliatory measures.

The announcement from the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, comes as Mr Fox's department seeks to lay the groundwork for a post-Brexit trade deal with Washington.

Steel imports will now be hit with a 25 per cent US levy. Aluminium exporters will face an additional 10 per cent charge. The Trump administration claims these are justified on US “national security” grounds.

The EU has previously threatened retaliatory duties on US whiskey, jeans, orange juice, peanut butter and other products if the US followed through on its metal tariff plans. 

The chorus of sane voices strongly objecting is loud and forthright:

"This is dumb," Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said. "Europe, Canada, and Mexico are not China, and you don't treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We've been down this road before— — blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. 'Make America Great Again' shouldn't mean 'Make America 1929 Again.'" 

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said the tariffs "are hitting the wrong target" that "puts American workers and families at risk, whose jobs depend on fairly traded products from these important trading partners. And it hurts our efforts to create good-paying U.S. jobs by selling more 'Made in America' products to customers in these countries." 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a reliable ally for Trump, said the tariffs amounted to "a tax hike on Americans and will have damaging consequences for consumers, manufacturers and workers." 

"We should build on our success in overhauling the nation's tax code with complementary trade policies that, rather than favoring one narrow industry, make all sectors of the US economy more competitive," Hatch added.
Even House Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed the decision as counterproductive. 

"I disagree with this decision. Instead of addressing the real problems in the international trade of these products, today's action targets America's allies when we should be working with them to address the unfair trading practices of countries like China," Ryan said in a statement. "There are better ways to help American workers and consumers. I intend to keep working with the president on those better options." 

Heritage Foundation economist Tori Whiting told Business Insider that the move by the Trump administration represented a "tremendous misstep" that would harm American companies. 

"Sixteen percent of our steel imports come from Canada, our closest neighbor. Roughly 60% of our aluminum imports come from Canada, our closest neighbor," Whiting said. "And that's not only going to reduce supply of those products for manufacturers here in America that use them in their production, but it's also going to result in the prices for those products increasing even more domestically — not just for those companies that buy imports but also for companies that buy domestically." 

"I think that anytime you are imposing tariffs on your friends, it's a poor move, especially when we want these other countries to help us with China," Whiting added. "And dealing with trade complications between the US and China, we want the EU and Canada and Mexico to help us with that. So I wouldn't necessarily say that this is the beginning of a trade war. ... But I would say it's not conducive to maintaining a long-term relationship with those countries and having them help us in other areas of trade." 

Other tariffs, like one Trump is considering on foreign cars, caused similar levels of concern in Washington. 

"The announcement that foreign automobiles might be subjected to similar tariffs does not bode well for the economy or for the Trump economic record," wrote American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Benjamin Zycher in a Wednesday op-ed for National Review. "Because there is no obvious limit on the national-security rationale for protectionism, this policy will engender substantial uncertainty in the economy." 

But rather than these voices, it seems it's the rank protectionist Peter Navarro who has the VSG's ear:

“This particular action on steel and aluminum is not about unfair trade practices. It's about national security… without an aluminum steel industry, we don't have a country,” Navarro said during a FOX Business interview on the “After the Bell” program on Thursday.

Navarro added that imposing tariffs on the nation's closest allies is an opportunity to create jobs.

“All we are trying to do here with the 232 tariffs is to provide our domestic industries an opportunity to earn a decent rate of return and invest in this country,” he said.

Peter, the number of jobs created for steel and aluminum workers is dwarfed by the number lost in industries downstream in the supply chain.

The VSG is winging it, which seems to be working out okay for the moment, but what happens right around the bend in this nationalist-populist era is anybody's guess.