Trump Tariffs, Trade Wars & The Abel-Lerner Connection – What It All Means for the Real World ?

This whole thought came about after watching a video of Dr. Steve Hanke speaking to a think tank ...snippet below, where he pointed out something remarkably simple yet deeply profound: “Tariffs are a tax on your own exports.” That line hit me like a freight train - and sent me digging into the Lerner condition, a 1937 economic model influenced by the mathematical symmetry thinking of Niels Henrik Abel.

In the chaos of trade wars, tariffs, and political grandstanding, it’s easy to get lost in economic jargon. But sometimes, the best insights come from surprisingly elegant theories - like the one Lerner proposed.

Let me break it down.

Understanding the Lerner Condition and Abel’s Influence

Imagine you slap a tax on imports to protect your local industries. Sounds smart, right? But Lerner’s condition flips this idea on its head. He argued that an import tariff is economically the same as a tax on your own exports. That’s because when you make foreign goods expensive, your own exporters face retaliation or reduced foreign income, which means less demand for your stuff too. It's like trying to win a pillow fight by punching yourself in the gut.

Mathematician Niels Henrik Abel didn’t study trade, but his obsession with symmetry influenced Lerner’s thinking. Just like Abel found elegant balance in equations, Lerner applied symmetry to global trade. A tax on imports = a tax on exports. Simple. Brutal. True. So how will the present embroglio pan out?

Scenario 1: The Tariff Spiral – Everyone Loses

This is the “nightmare mode” of a trade war. Country A (say, the U.S.) imposes tariffs. Country B (China) hits back. Both sides keep raising the stakes.

We’ve seen this play out. Under Trump, U.S. tariffs on China soared. China retaliated, targeting American exports like soybeans - crippling U.S. farmers. Trade volumes shrank. Prices rose. Consumers in both countries paid more. Global supply chains bent and broke.

This spiral fits Lerner’s model perfectly. Both countries tried to win but ended up taxing their own economies. It's like two neighbors blocking each other’s driveways out of spite - and then wondering why no one can go anywhere.

Scenario 2: The Truce – A Pause, Not a Peace

Now picture this: after months of economic damage, both sides say, “enough.” They agree to a partial rollback. This happened with the Phase One trade deal in 2020. China promised to buy more U.S. goods. The U.S. backed off new tariffs.

Great, right? Sort of.

Yes, it eased tensions and helped some exporters (hello again, soybeans). But most tariffs stayed. China didn’t fully meet its promises. And the structural issues - tech theft, subsidies - remained unresolved.

This is the halfway house. The bleeding slows, but the wound is still open. Trade recovers slightly, but the trust is fractured.

Scenario 3: The Standoff – The New Normal

Finally, we have the long-term stalemate: tariffs remain, trade adjusts, and both countries “decouple” bit by bit.

This is where we are today.

The U.S. still has tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese goods. China retaliates. Both economies slowly shift - U.S. importers turn to Vietnam or Mexico; China looks to ASEAN and Europe. Supply chains evolve, but efficiency drops. Everything costs a little more. Growth lags.

And the Lerner symmetry still applies. Those tariffs? They’re quietly taxing exporters and raising prices back home. No fanfare. Just a slow burn.

Final Thoughts: Trade Wars Are Boomerangs

If the Lerner condition teaches us anything, it’s this: tariffs hurt both ways. You can’t win a trade war by throwing taxes around. They come right back at you - hurting your exporters, your consumers, and your long-term growth.

Trump’s trade war with China showed this in action. The U.S. paid more, sold less, and achieved little lasting change. China took a hit too, but adapted.

So what’s the big takeaway?

In trade wars, there are no clean victories. Just costs - some obvious, some hidden. And if we want smarter policies in the future, we’d do well to remember what Lerner (and Abel) taught us: economic systems have symmetry - and that symmetry bites back.