fbpx
01 / 05
Centers of Progress, Pt. 37: Dubrovnik (Public Health)

Blog Post | Health Systems

Centers of Progress, Pt. 37: Dubrovnik (Public Health)

In the midst of the Black Death, Dubrovnik kept its port open with innovations in public health.

Today marks the 37th installment in a series of articles by HumanProgress.org called Centers of Progress. Where does progress happen? The story of civilization is in many ways the story of the city. It is the city that has helped to create and define the modern world. This bi-weekly column will give a short overview of urban centers that were the sites of pivotal advances in culture, economics, politics, technology, etc.

The 37th Center of Progress is now called Dubrovnik, but was known historically as Ragusa. The picturesque port city is nicknamed “the pearl of the Adriatic” for its beauty. But the city has also been called “the Hong Kong of the Mediterranean” for its historic embrace of personal and economic freedom and its maritime trade-based prosperity. Not only was the small city-state of the Republic of Ragusa at the forefront of freedom for its time, being one of the earliest countries to ban slavery, but the glittering merchant city on the sea was also the site of an early milestone in the history of public health: quarantine waiting periods, which were first implemented in 1377. In 1390, Dubrovnik also created the world’s first permanent public health office. Perhaps more than any other city, Dubrovnik can claim to have helped create the idea of public health.

Today, Dubrovnik is best known for its exquisite sights, including many historic buildings and museums. It is located in the southern Croatian region of Dalmatia, best known for the Dalmatian dog breed, which existed as far back as1375. Tourism dominates the economy. Much of the city’s layout remains largely unchanged from the year 1292, with narrow winding stone-paved streets; innumerable medieval monuments, towers, and monasteries; and charming garden-surrounded villas and orange groves. The old city is a designated UNESCO World Heritage Site, boasting well-preserved Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque architecture in the form of numerous churches and palaces. The city is often considered a major artistic center of Croatia and the site of many cultural activities, theatrical and musical performances, festivals, and museums. The city’s Banje Beach is also popular, and the Gruz Port is now busy with cruise ships.

The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) claimed, “Those who seek paradise on Earth should come to Dubrovnik.” Fans of Game of Thrones may recognize Dubrovnik as the set bringing to life the fictional seaside city of King’s Landing. But whereas King’s Landing was the capital of a despotic absolute monarchy, in reality Dubrovnik was devoted to freedom to an unusual degree from its inception, and is proud to have had no king. “The city-republic was liberal in character, affording asylum to refugees of all nations—one of them, according to legend, was King Richard I (the Lionheart) of England, who landed on the offshore island of Lokrum in 1192 on his return from the Crusades,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Dubrovnik was a tributary city-state under Venetian suzerainty from 1205–1358, retaining substantial independence and growing prosperous as a mercantile power. It was during that period, in 1348, when the bubonic plague first reached the city. Within four years the disease extinguished the lives of perhaps two-thirds of the city’s citizens. And that was just the first wave. During the Black Death pandemic, periodic lulls were often followed by new outbreaks.

In 1358, Hungary pressured Venice to surrender control of Dubrovnik, and the Republic of Ragusa (1358–1808) was born. It was during the republican era that the city created the novel public health measure of quarantine, and practiced it from 1377–1533. While not perfect—outbreaks of plague occurred in 1391 and 1397—the measure was nonetheless revolutionary. Other cities soon implemented similar protocols, such as Geneva in 1467. 

“It should not be a surprise to find Dubrovnik at the heart of quarantine’s origin-story, because the city was a seafaring supernova for much of the medieval era,” notes British journalist Chris Leadbeater. An aristocratic republic with fewer than 10,000 people living within its walls and a constitution resembling Venice’s, Dubrovnik was ruled by a council of merchant princes selected from the patrician families that comprised about a third of the city’s population. Unlike in Venice, the ranks of the nobility were never formally closed, meaning that newly successful merchant families could gain patrician status. Term limits restricted the top government official, the rector, from serving for more than a month, after which he could not seek the role again for two years. Dubrovnik also “never saw an elaborate increase in bureaucratic functions or felt the great weight of government intervention as Venetians did,” opting for relatively limited government interference with the city’s robust trade. 

If you could visit Dubrovnik during its maritime golden years (1350–1575), you would enter a vibrant coastal city filled with stone architecture, diverse travelers speaking languages ranging from German to Turkish to Italian, and awash in art and commerce. You might have glimpsed noblewomen wearing fine jewelry—who were free to trade their jewels without male permission even in that age of extreme gender inequality, thus contributing to a lucrative export market.

The Croatian economic historian Vladimir Stipetić has noted, “Dubrovnik traded like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan . . . but did so some five hundred years before . . . [and like those countries] became prosperous . . . because of [its] adopted economic policy.” As a result of the city’s relative economic freedom, and the resources saved by the city’s disinterest in military expansionism, Dubrovnik’s fleet of hundreds of merchant ships at times outnumbered those of Venice, despite the latter boasting perhaps 10 times the population of Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik’s economic expansion is also, of course, owed to the innovativeness of its people. In the 15th century, a Dubrovnik humanist, merchant, and nobleman named Benedetto Cotrugli (1416–1469) published Della mercatura e del mercante perfetto (Trade and the Perfect Merchant), which is thought to be the first work on bookkeeping in the world. It was also a trade manual advocating for honesty in all dealings.

The republic mediated trade between the Ottoman Empire and what was popularly called Christendom. Located at the intersection of territories practicing Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity, Dubrovnik maintained a policy of friendly trade with people of all faiths in an era when religious tensions were high, while internally endorsing Catholicism. The city’s culture was unusually “secular, sophisticated, individualistic,” and cosmopolitan for its time. During its republican era, Dubrovnik became a major center of Slavic literature and art, as well as philosophy, particularly in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries—earning the city the nickname “the Slavic Athens.” It produced notable writers, such as Cerva (1463–1520), Šiško Menčetić (1457-1527), Marin Držić (1508–1567), and Ivan Gundulić (1589-1638), now regarded as Croatia’s national poet. His most famous poem is the “Hymn to Freedom”:

O liepa, o draga, o slatka slobodo,

dar u kom sva blaga višnji nam Bog je dô,

uzroče istini od naše sve slave,

uresu jedini od ove Dubrave,

sva srebra, sva zlata, svi ljudcki životi

ne mogu bit plata tvôj čistoj lipoti.

O beautiful, o precious, o sweet Liberty,

the greatest gift of all the treasures God has given us,

the truth of all our glory,

the decoration of Dubrovnik,

all silver, all gold, all human lives

are not worth as much as your pure beauty.

Despite its lack of military power and its miniscule size, Dubrovnik’s economic freedom and remarkable political and social stability helped the tiny republic to survive for almost half a millennium before Napoleon conquered it in 1808. While Dubrovnik was at times compelled to provide tribute to its more powerful neighbors to maintain political independence, the republic’s citizens were proud of their relative liberty. In fact, the republic’s Latin motto was Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro, meaning, “Liberty is not sold for all the gold in the world.” The republic’s flag was simply the word Libertas (Latin for “liberty”) in red on a white background. From 1792 to 1795, Dubrovnik also issued silver coins called libertinas, featuring the word Libertas in the design’s central position. Moreover, the republic was among the first European countries to abolish slavery, outlawing the slave trade in 1416. The city’s governing council voted that “none of our nationals or foreigners, and everyone who considers himself or herself from Dubrovnik, can in any way or under any pretext to buy or sell slaves . . . or be a mediator in such trade.”

Recognizing the threat that recurring outbreaks of bubonic plague posed to their city, the people of Dubrovnik took action to preserve their trading prosperity and their very existence. Thanks to Dubrovnik’s public health measures, the city managed to prevent many deaths and even achieve significant mercantile expansion during the plague period.

Bubonic plague is a bacterial disease that, when left untreated, is usually fatal within days of symptoms appearing. The bubonic plague has ravaged humanity many times, and has even been found in human skeletons dating to 3000 BC. Bubonic plague cases still occur even today. The first outbreak of the illness that was widespread enough to be termed a pandemic occurred in the 6th century AD, during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. But the bubonic plague pandemic that devastated Asia, Africa, and Europe in the 14th century—named the Black Death or the Great Pestilence—proved to be the most fatal pandemic in recorded history, killing perhaps as many as 200 million people, including up to 60 percent of Europe’s population. 

That outbreak first emerged in western China. In just three years, between 1331 and 1334, bubonic plague killed more than 90 percent of the people in Hebei Province, which covers an area of land slightly bigger than Ireland. Over 5 million Hebeian corpses presented a preview of the deaths to come.

The scale of the devastation is difficult to imagine. The Black Death laid waste to Europe from 1346 to 1353. In 1348, the bacteria wiped out 60 percent of Florence’s population. That same year, the plague reached France, and within four years at least a third of Parisians were in the grave. The following year, the plague arrived in London and halved that city’s populace. In practically every city and town, the tragedy repeated itself.

One firsthand account of the devastation notes: “[T]his mortality devoured such a multitude of both sexes that no one could be found to carry the bodies of the dead to burial, but men and women carried the bodies of their own little ones to church on their shoulders and threw them into mass graves, from which arose such a stink that it was barely possible for anyone to go past a churchyard.”

Survivors were haunted by grief and loneliness. In 1349, the Italian writer Francesco Petrarch, who lost many companions to the plague, including his muse Laura, wrote:

Where are our dear friends now? Where are the beloved faces? Where are the affectionate words, the relaxed and enjoyable conversations? . . . What abyss swallowed them? There was a crowd of us, now we are almost alone. We should make new friends—but how, when the human race is almost wiped out; and why, when it looks to me as if the end of the world is at hand? Why pretend? We are alone indeed.

Despite life’s hardships, survival was nonetheless preferable to death, and people made a great number of innovative attempts to prevent and treat the disease that was decimating humanity. Many of those measures were tragically ineffective, such as bloodletting and avoiding baths. (Bathing was thought to expand the pores and make one vulnerable to disease.) Some measures helped a little in the prevention of illness—such as avoiding foul smells, including rotting corpses, and encouraging better home ventilation. 

Famously, medieval understanding of how disease spread left much to be desired. Many assumed that the Black Death was a divine punishment for mankind’s sins, giving rise to the distressing flagellant movement, and some of the brightest minds of the day at the University of Paris, when commissioned by the king of France to explain the plague, concluded that the movements of Saturn were to blame. Others blamed witchcraft. Reprehensibly, still others violently scapegoated religious minorities: “Hygienic practices limited the spread of plague in Jewish ghettos, leading to the Jews being blamed for the plague’s spread, and widespread massacres, especially in Germany and Central Europe.” 

However, while they may not have grasped the cause of the illness, medieval people did possess the general concept of contagion. They knew that the plague disseminated from one place to another and that transmission was occurring in some way: the suspected vectors ranged from the wind to the gaze of an infected person. 

Fortunately, medieval people did not need to know that the bubonic plague spreads mainly via fleas to figure out that limiting contact with people and objects from known outbreak sites was the most prudent course of action. This idea became widespread in part through the works of various physicians publishing medical pamphlets or tractates throughout Europe that may have represented “the first large-scale effort at popular health instruction in history.” The Catalan doctor Jaume d’Agramont (d. 1350 of plague), for example, advised the public against eating food from “pestilential regions,” and wrote that “association with a sufferer of a pestilential disease” could cause the illness to spread from one person to another “like a wildfire.” The possibility of interpersonal transmission became widely suspected, even if few guessed at the flea’s role as an intermediary. 

Even before the plague, Dubrovnik made several strides toward better public health. While we now take basic hygiene measures for granted, Dubrovnik was something of a medieval outlier when it limited the disposal of garbage and feces in the city in 1272. The city banned swine from city streets in 1336, hired street cleaners in 1415, and created a complete sewage system in the early 15th century. Dubrovnik’s relative prosperity allowed it to offer competitive wages to draw physicians from other cities, such as Salerno, Venice, Padua, and the home of the first university, Bologna. In 1390, Dubrovnik also created the world’s first permanent public health office to enforce its various public health rules.

Economic incentives helped motivate the trade-dependent city’s innovations in public health and sanitation: “Sanitary measures in Dubrovnik were constantly improved because the city was forced to find a way to protect itself from diseases and at the same time retain the lucrative trade relations which formed its economic base.” During the outbreak of 1347, the Dubrovnik writer and nobleman Nikola Ragnina (1494–1582) claimed that people first attempted to banish the plague with fire: “There was no cure and everyone was dying. When people saw that their physicians could not defend them, they decided to . . . purify the air with fire.” The fires may have helped to kill off some of the plague-carrying fleas, but were ultimately a failed experiment. So, they tried something new.

Even a primitive understanding of how the illness spread proved sufficient for the people of Dubrovnik to attempt a radical and historic experiment in disease prevention. In 1374, Venice first put in place waiting periods for ship passengers to enter their city, but this was purely at the discretion of health bureaucrats, thus leading to irrational, selective enforcement. But in 1377, Dubrovnik’s council implemented a much more logical system: all passengers on incoming ships and members of trade caravans arriving from infected areas were to wait for 30 days in the nearby town of Cavtat or the island of Mrkan before entering Dubrovnik’s city walls. The quarantine period was soon expanded to 40 days (the word “quarantine” means “40 days”)—a number likely reached as a result of experience, as the full course of the bubonic plague from contraction to death was typically around 37 days.

“Dubrovnik’s administration arrived at the idea of quarantine as a result of its experience isolating leprosy victims to prevent spread of the disease,” notes historian Ana Bakija-Konsuo. “Historical science has undoubtedly proved Dubrovnik’s priority in the ‘invention’ of quarantine. Isolation, as a concept, had been applied even before 1377, as mentioned in the Statute of the City Dubrovnik, which was written in 1272 and . . . is the first mention of the isolation of the patients with leprosy.” Dubrovnik’s stone seaside quarantine shelters, sometimes considered the first plague hospitals in Europe, were called lazarettos after Lazarus, the patron saint of lepers. Today the city’s lazarettos serve as tourist attractions and concert venues.

Devastating plague outbreaks eventually forced Venice to implement a complete ban on anyone entering its walls, bringing trade and city life to a halt, but Dubrovnik’s limited waiting periods let the republic keep its doors open to people and merchandise from abroad. “Hence, Dubrovnik implemented a method that was not only just and fair, but also very wise and successful, and it [eventually] prevailed around the world,” according to historian Ante Milošević. Quarantine procedures remain the standard policy to this day when dealing with certain contagious diseases.

Dubrovnik Old Town Croatia.

The Black Death pandemic is sometimes viewed as the end of medieval civilization and the beginning of the Renaissance period. Faced with a disease that would not become treatable until the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s, Dubrovnik certainly underwent a rebirth, recovering from the initial wave of deaths to become the first city to implement a coherent public health response to the bubonic plague. Dubrovnik’s invention of quarantine represents not only perhaps the highest achievement of medieval medicine, but the emergence of one of humanity’s oldest disease-prevention tools and a turning point in the history of public health. With its strong ideals of liberty and devotion to public health, Dubrovnik during its republican era has earned its place as our 37th Center of Progress.

UN Trade and Development | Trade

Global Trade Hits Record $33 Trillion in 2024

“Global trade hit a record $33 trillion in 2024, expanding 3.7% ($1.2 trillion), according to the latest Global Trade Update by UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which warns that while trade remains strong, uncertainty looms in 2025…

Developing economies outpaced developed nations, with imports and exports rising 4% for the year and 2% in the fourth quarter, driven mainly by East and South Asia. South-South trade expanded 5% annually and 4% in the last quarter.

Chain and India outperformed global trade averages. In contrast, trade in the Russian Federation, South Africa, and Brazil remained sluggish for most of the year, with some improvement in the fourth quarter.

Meanwhile, developed economies’ trade stagnated, with imports and exports flat for the year and down 2% in the last quarter.”

From UN Trade and Development.

Blog Post | Trade

An Update on the Trump Tariffs | Podcast Highlights

Scott Lincicome joins Marian Tupy to discuss how President Trump's trade policies will affect American prosperity, national security, government revenue, and industry.

Listen to the podcast or read the full transcript here.

Why is trade important to human progress?

Trade helps us access goods and services from around the world at low prices. That improves our living standards, allows our wages to go further, and makes life more fun. Thanks to international trade, we have year-round access to fruits and vegetables that used to be seasonal or simply not available at all.

But it’s deeper than that. Trade is part of the great prosperity machine of free markets. Individuals trade not only goods and services but also for knowledge. That boosts our society and prosperity. It allows for innovation, either via competition or by importing innovations from abroad. Trade also allows individuals to learn about other places. And in general, trade tempers the desire to go to war. You don’t want to kill your customers. And that helps make the world a little safer.

Now, let’s assume that you don’t like foreigners. You think they are nasty don’t treat us fairly and whatever else. We have 350 million people in America. Why can’t we make everything we need here?

We technically could make everything ourselves, especially in a place like the United States, but that would just make us poorer and less productive.

I’ll give you a good example. It pays about $12 an hour to work at a T-shirt manufacturing plant in South Carolina. It pays much more to go work at Amazon or Costco. So why not purchase T-shirts from a place like Guatemala, where working in a T-shirt factory is a good, high-paying job? It just makes sense for us to trade for those things and not force American workers into those low-wage jobs.

Instead of making clothes and shoes, we can outsource those things and focus instead on higher-value production. We can work in tech, services, or advanced manufacturing. That specialization is critically important for raising living standards.

Trade is also about opportunity cost. At any given time, we only have a set amount of raw materials, workers, and capital, and if you devote those resources to lower-value production, those resources can’t flow to higher-value options. This is part of the unseen aspect of protectionism. When we put tariffs on washing machines, we might get a washing machine plant in South Carolina, but what we don’t see is that all of the resources that went to making and operating that factory could have been deployed in more productive endeavors if we had just simply bought washing machines from abroad.

Resources are also wasted on the consumer side. If you and I are forced to spend an extra hundred dollars on a washing machine, that’s money we can’t spend elsewhere in the economy. Those washing machine tariffs I mentioned created about 1000 washing machine jobs, but it cost American consumers around $800,000 a year per job created. That’s simply a loss of financial resources that could have been deployed elsewhere.

What do you make of the arguments that consumption should take second place to something else, such as national cohesion or pride or security?

First we should simply note the facts.

The first thing to know is that the United States today is the world’s second largest manufacturing nation. So, we are still a large manufacturing nation; we just don’t need a lot of workers because our workers are very productive, probably the most productive in the world.

The second is that American manufacturing is very dependent on trade. All manufacturers are consumers at some level, but that’s especially true for more advanced manufacturers like we have in the United States. They need access to cheap raw materials and parts. If you jack up the price of steel and throw a bunch of tariffs on auto parts, you end up lowering production in these more advanced industries. Steel was a case study of this. We imposed a bunch of tariffs on steel during the first Trump administration, and studies have shown that we saw a modest increase in steel output and employment, but overall manufacturing output and employment fell. According to the United States International Trade Commission, we had about a $500 million yearly net loss in manufacturing output because of the steel tariffs.

I should note one of my favorite stats: about half of everything imported into the United States today is a manufacturing input. It’s stuff that our manufacturers use to make other stuff. A lot of that also comes from their own companies abroad. So, Airbus has a facility in South Carolina that imports from Airbus France. BMW, also in South Carolina, imports from BMW in Germany. If you shut down their ability to access their parts and equipment abroad, you’re going to reduce their output in the United States. If you care about national defense, kneecapping BMW, Airbus, and Boeing is a bad thing.

Our manufacturers also need access to overseas markets and overseas consumers. About 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States. And so, if you deny American companies the ability to access those markets or make them globally uncompetitive by raising their input costs, then you’re harming the manufacturing sector.

So if you remember those things, as well as access to foreign capital, you realize that openness and production are not exclusive; they’re complementary. The former boosts the latter.

I also think there is a misunderstanding here about national security and trade. The criticism is that if we don’t have steel mills in the United States, we will depend on Chinese steel to build our aircraft carriers and tanks. But that’s not really how it works.

Right. We do import a good amount of steel, but the top steel suppliers to the United States are countries like Canada, Europe, and Japan. Countries like Russia and China are not in the top 10. And when you talk about a country like China with a billion and a half people and a massive manufacturing footprint, it makes sense for us to pool our resources with our allies and enter into trade and defense agreements. That allows us to work together boost the overall productive capacity of our defense industrial base. The US Defense industrial base includes Canada right now. That’s how close of an ally Canada is. So slapping tariffs on stuff from Canada just doesn’t make much sense, and it’s even more baffling that they’re doing it on national security grounds.

This is a good place for you to tell us about what’s been happening since Donald Trump took over the presidency. Where are we currently?

It’s been a busy few weeks. Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, he issued several executive orders invoking a national emergency with respect to fentanyl coming from China, Mexico, and Canada. By invoking that national emergency, he unlocked tariff or trade powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It’s a cautionary tale about congressional delegations of power, but that’s an issue for another podcast. The President has since then imposed 20 percent tariffs on all Chinese goods. And those are on top of the 25 percent tariffs from his first term on half of Chinese goods and 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico.

He has also jacked up tariff rates from 10 percent to 25 percent for aluminum, and he kept the 25 percent steel tariffs, but he closed all of the exemptions that had been there before.

This is a huge change because around half of all steel and aluminum imports were exempt from the national security tariffs that Trump imposed the first time around. There were a series of agreements with companies going to the administration and saying, “We can’t get the steel and aluminum we need here,” and getting an exclusion. Trump has now shut all of those down. Not great for our manufacturing sector.

The President has also promised reciprocal tariffs. So, if India has a 20 percent tariff on American motorcycles, we’re going to put a 20 percent tariff on Indian motorcycles.

Markets are not thrilled. Not only with the tariffs but also the uncertainty. Economic policy is not supposed to enacted via a switch in the Oval Office. The President is turning on tariffs and then turning them off, sometimes in the same day. As any investor or lawyer will tell you, the thing that companies hate more than taxes is uncertainty. Without that predictability and consistency in the market, they can’t hire or invest. They freeze up and sit on their hands. That’s probably a bigger immediate problem than the tariffs themselves.

The other thing they’re going to do is stockpile. Right now, people in the construction industry are filling warehouses with construction materials because they’re worried about tariffs on Canadian lumber and steel. Having a warehouse full of stuff is a huge cost. You have to rent the warehouse and buy all the stuff, and that’s capital that you can’t deploy by hiring more workers or boosting output. Instead of focusing on their business, people are focusing on these emergency game plan scenarios.

And by the way, they’re all also lobbying in Washington. Trade policy lobbying has skyrocketed. Trade lawyers are making fortunes. They’re building beach houses in Delaware, all because of this tariff uncertainty. That’s good for them but bad for the economy. And it contradicts so much of the rhetoric coming out of this administration about eliminating inefficiency and waste and reducing the government’s role in the economy. It seems they’ve forgotten all of that on the trade front, and they’re doing basically the opposite. That will counteract the good parts of their economic agenda.

But what about fairness, Scott Lincicome? Is it fair that the Indians are placing a 20 percent tariff on us, and we are only placing 5 percent?

I have to tell you, when I heard about the reciprocal tariff, my lizard brain said to me, “Absolutely yes. Let’s make it fair.” What’s wrong with that argument?

A lot of the global trading system is based on this notion of reciprocity, but there are a few problems.

The first is the economics: matching other countries’ tariffs will make Americans poorer. Going back to the example of food, Mexico imposes certain tariffs on food, and we get a lot of food from Mexico. Does it make economic sense to impoverish our citizens in the way that Mexico impoverishes theirs? No, it doesn’t. So that’s the first issue.

There’s also a collectivist logic to this, that the government should punish some citizens to benefit others. But most of us don’t work in an export industry. We won’t benefit personally from any sort of expanded access to a foreign market. A few businesses might, but the vast majority of individuals won’t see any gains.

The other issue is America First. If you match other countries’ tariffs, you’re effectively letting them set your trade policy. I’ll give you examples because this can get very absurd. We buy a lot of coffee from Colombia. We do not grow coffee, except for a little bit in Hawaii. Well, Colombia has a 10 percent tariff on coffee beans from America, and we don’t send them any coffee beans. Should we let the Colombian government dictate our tariff policy in applying a 10 percent tariff on Colombian coffee? That’s not America First; it’s America Second. We should set tariffs and any other policy based on what’s good for America and what’s good for us as individuals, not what another country does.

Finally, practically speaking, this is a mess. You’re talking about thousands and thousands of different products from 200 different countries. You’re talking about trying to quantify not just tariff barriers but non-tariff barriers, subsidies, value-added taxes, you name it. Trying to administer this system would be incredibly difficult and would require thousands of new customs officials and tons of new paperwork, going back to how the administration is contradicting itself.

China is looming very large in this conversation. There is a lot of talk about the millions of jobs lost in the United States because of China. But my understanding is that most manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation.

First of all, is it true? And if so, should we be against automation? Tucker Carlson famously said he would be against autonomous vehicles if they took jobs away from truck drivers.

It is true that increased trade with China, starting around 1999, caused around a million manufacturing jobs to be lost. But there are two big caveats. First, those studies only looked at the jobs lost, not the jobs gained from lower input prices in manufacturing, jobs gained in services, and jobs gained from exports to China. When you include those figures, the overall net effect is a wash.

The second point is that those million manufacturing jobs were just a fraction of the total manufacturing jobs lost over the last several decades. Most of the manufacturing job loss over the last several decades was due to improving productivity. Not just robots, but computers, improved business practices, that kind of stuff.

And look, losing a job is painful, but it is an essential part of economic progress. The reason wages improve over time is productivity growth. In general, we want those robots. We want to outsource manual labor, unsafe labor, and the rest to machines because that allows us to make more stuff and have higher wages.

You can go back to telephone operators in the 1920s. That was a huge labor market shock, particularly for young women. But we would be worse off if we still had to pick up a rotary dial phone and have some woman connecting us like you see in the old movies. She’d have a job, but we would be worse off as a society. It is better to let that disruption happen and make it easy for people to adjust and move into other industries. We have all of these different policies in place—labor policy, occupational licensing, housing policy, regulatory policy—that make it harder for American workers hit by disruption to move on. That’s what we need to be focusing on.

I want to bring up one last subject. There’s a lot of discussion about Donald Trump playing some sort of four-dimensional chess. One of the arguments I’m hearing is that the tariff system is part of a concerted effort to reduce government spending and transition away from income taxes to a more consumption-oriented model. What do you think of that?

I’m extremely skeptical. One reason is the administration’s words and actions. There really isn’t a concerted effort in Washington right now to cut spending in the long term. The nips and cuts that DOGE is making are not going to make a dent in our spending trajectory. Mainly it’s Social Security and Medicare that need reform, and those are not being touched.

The second issue is the math. Tariffs aren’t a broad-based consumption tax; they are attacks on a narrow band of our consumption. Imports make up about $4 trillion out of $25 trillion in total consumption. And if you raise tariffs too high, you don’t get any imports, and you don’t get any revenue. So, there’s only so much revenue you can get from tariffs. You’re looking at maybe $400 billion a year maybe, and that’s generous. Others have said maybe $200 billion. Any more than that and imports will start shrinking. You would need to replace $2.5 trillion a year to eliminate the income tax.

The other big issue is that tariffs tend to cause the dollar to appreciate, which will make it harder for our exporters.

I just don’t see a lot of grand strategy here. And that leaves aside all the gossipy stuff we read in Politico. If we apply Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer is that President Trump likes tariffs. He likes using them as negotiating tools. He likes how it makes CEOs and government officials run to him seeking favor. He likes that they’re raising some revenue and that he can use them to push foreign governments around. That’s a far more likely explanation than some deep grand strategy.

The Human Progress Podcast | Ep. 59

Scott Lincicome: An Update on the Trump Tariffs

Scott Lincicome joins Marian Tupy to discuss how President Trump's trade policies will affect American prosperity, national security, government revenue, and industry.