Americans consume “Russian oil.” What you’ve just read isn’t a sign of corruption stateside, rather it’s a signal of basic economics. Production begets imports from around the world always, and from every country, friend or foe. This includes Iran.
The only barrier to this peace-enhancing state of play is that political classes can sap economic vitality by figuratively dynamiting bridges and ships with taxes otherwise known as tariffs, or they can figuratively throw boulders into ports to limit the arrival of imports via similar taxation.
It’s all worth keeping in mind as the U.S. political class aims to honor the late Sen. Lindsey Graham by posthumously passing his Sanctioning Russia Act. The Act will bring with it 100% tariffs on the five biggest country importers of Russian oil and gas. The legislation vandalizes economics.
That’s why it’s so disappointing that even the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is joining the cheering section in support of Graham’s bill. Amid all the excitement, it’s seemingly beyond the pale to ask why Americans must suffer economically so that countries like Ukraine can maybe prevail in their war against Russia.
The Journal’s editorial page notes that “The legislation would grant the U.S. President explicit authority to impose tariffs of up to 100% on the top five countries buying Russian oil and gas.” Hmmm. How long have the Journal and other sources of free-market opinion written about the dangers of giving a tariff-loving president (that would be Trump) the power to impose taxes on other countries, yet suddenly it’s ok because it’s embedded in legislation honoring Graham?
Which leads to more questions, or at least a question: have the increasingly situational promoters of free markets (see the right’s efforts to turn Chinese exports to the U.S. into spying operations for the CCP) bothered to contemplate the stock market implications of 100% tariffs? How soon conservatives forget the market reaction to Trump’s unilaterally imposed tariffs levied in violation of the Constitution, so what happens when a “do something” Congress gives Trump cover in “a fitting tribute to the late Republican Senator”?
Don’t worry, Graham’s (he wanted 500% tariffs) watered down legislation won’t hit all nations that commit basic economics. As the editorial explains it, there’s an exemption “for countries whose purchases account for less than 15% of Russia’s total annual natural-gas exports, provided they’re making a substantial effort to wean off Russian energy. China and India likely wouldn’t qualify for exemptions.”
The last sentence seems to be a way to justify the economically indefensible, since Graham’s legislation will “only” hit countries like China. Ok, but the high valuation of U.S. corporations is increasingly an effect of market expectations of exports headed to China in growing amounts. Which means Graham’s legislation would be profoundly damaging to the U.S. economy.
Furthermore, market-oriented conservatives used to at least mouth the happy truth that trade among people in productive nations makes war between those nations frightfully expensive. It seems economic logic goes out the window when it comes to Ukraine. Said another way, national security along with the vitality of the U.S. economy will be sacrificed for Ukraine.
Never asked by the right is why the American people must suffer so that Ukraine can perhaps survive, not to mention why the American people must gain a federal government with enhanced taxing power in the bargain. Not asked enough by those who venerated Graham is why in death the patriot’s name must be associated with what’s so inimical to American prosperity and freedom.