Dallas, TX USA
Info(at)Everyblm.com
Written by Neil Mammen, Executive VP, Every Black Life Matters. www.EveryBLM.com
Food production is another sector where domestic capability is non-negotiable. Relying heavily on foreign sources for essential food items exposes us to significant risks. If a major supplier nation decides to halt exports—due to political tensions, natural disasters, or strategic leverage—we could face immediate shortages.
Let me ask you a question.
If a thief breaks into your factory, steals your manufacturing secrets, and then sells you cheap knockoff versions of your products—should you thank him for the bargain?
No? Good. Then you already understand the real problem with global trade today.
We’ve been told for years that tariffs are evil. That they “hurt consumers” and “start trade wars.” But let me ask you this: what if tariffs, used carefully, could actually bring down foreign trade barriers? What if they could level the playing field so American workers and businesses weren’t getting shafted by foreign governments?
Let’s unpack this. I’ll explain why tariffs are usually bad—but also how, when used the right way, by a savvy deal maker, they can be one of the most powerful negotiating tools we’ve got.
What is a tariff, really?
A tariff is just a tax on imports. That means if that BMW comes in from Germany or a Visio TV from China, the government slaps a fee on it before it can be sold in American stores. That fee gets passed along to—you guessed it—us, the consumer.
So, what happens? Prices go up. Not just a little—sometimes a lot. And that means less freedom for us, because we’re stuck paying more for the same products. Sound like a free market to you?
Now, as a Minarchist—a believer in minimal government—you probably see the problem already. Tariffs mean control. They hand power to bureaucrats. They invite corruption. They let some D.C. pencil-pusher decide who wins and who loses. And who usually wins? The connected. The cronies. The corporate giants who know how to work the system. They get exemptions. They get carve-outs. They get protection.
And who gets squeezed? The little guy.
The small importer trying to bring in affordable goods. The mom & pop shop trying to compete with the big boys. The consumer who just wants groceries that don’t cost 30% more.
Tariffs: The Hidden Costs of a False Economy
Tariffs often force Americans to focus on manufacturing things that aren’t the best use of their time, talent, or capital. That’s called a false economy.
Let me explain.
Imagine you’re at the farmers’ market and see a bar of healthy, organic, chemical-free soap for $8. You think, “I could make that for $2.” So, you go home, buy the materials, and spend an hour making the soap. Great—you saved $6. But wait. You’re a private contractor. That hour of your time, if spent on your real work, could have made you $40-$140 —or more. Not to mention, you could have been investing that hour into future projects or ideas that create long-term returns.
So, did you really save? No—you lost.
That’s a false economy. It looks like you’re gaining, but you’re actually losing time, focus, and future income. And it’s not just money. You’re burning your mindshare—your creative focus. You’re distracted from bigger things. You need to focus on your core competencies. When we force businesses to bring back inefficient manufacturing just because tariffs make foreign goods artificially more expensive, we’re doing the same thing—on a national scale.
We end up building things we shouldn’t be building, wasting time on tasks that drag us backward instead of launching us forward. That means less time developing the next great innovation, and more time rebuilding things others already do better and cheaper. We should most often buy materials and goods from the least expensive producers as long as they achieve our minimum quality level.
But here’s the caveat—and it’s a big one.
This logic doesn’t apply when we’re talking about cutting-edge technology or systems critical to our national advancement or security. If it’s something we’re doing ongoing research and development (R&D) on—something where we’re leading the world—then we should never offshore it.
Take semiconductors. If we’re advancing the technology, pushing boundaries, staying ahead of the curve, it makes no sense to move the manufacturing offshore. Why? Because the production process itself is tied to innovation. When you separate the factory from the lab, you break the feedback loop. You give away the edge. Worse you give them the ability to leapfrog you.
That’s why moving the manufacturing of things like NVIDIA’s AI/GPU chips, or Intel CPUs to another country is a strategic blunder. That’s not like offshoring fans or sofas. Those fans and sofas are stable, mature industries—there’s not much new to invent in a couch. But AI hardware? That’s the frontier. That’s where we hold the lead—and we shouldn’t hand it away.
Food and Agriculture: A Matter of National Security
Food production is another sector where domestic capability is non-negotiable. Relying heavily on foreign sources for essential food items exposes us to significant risks. If a major supplier nation decides to halt exports—due to political tensions, natural disasters, or strategic leverage—we could face immediate shortages.
Farming and agriculture isn’t just about feeding the population; it’s about maintaining sovereignty and stability. Just as with critical technologies, we must ensure that our equipment and food supply chains are robust, diversified, and, where possible, domestically anchored.
So yes, go ahead and offshore the furniture. Let someone else make the toasters. But keep the farmers, the ranchers, and the future right here—because once we lose it, we may never get it back.
One more Caveat
Even with commodities, we need multiple sources. In my experience with semiconductors, larger companies were hesitant to adopt our chips unless we had a second source. They needed assurance that if our company failed or was acquired by a competitor, their supply wouldn’t be disrupted. In some cases, we had to license our designs to another manufacturer to provide that redundancy. This practice is common in military projects, where reliability and security are paramount.
So even with our furniture, fans, and toasters, we need to insist on multiple nations as producers. Ideally, those who have no treaty with each other and are not geographically close to our current manufacturer. That way, if one nation gets taken over by a hostile government, is involved in a war, or enters into a trade dispute, or has a hurricane, we always have a backup. The difficulty of course is since we don’t want the government to be involved in manufacturing or controlling manufacturing we can only advise private companies that sell commodities to diversify their sources not only by manufacturing companies but by diverse nations as well.
So why would we ever use tariffs at all?
Ah, here’s where it gets interesting.
Imagine you’re in a business relationship, and your partner keeps taking and taking—but never gives anything in return. You say, “Hey, I’d like a little fairness here,” and they say, “Tough. Take it or leave it.”
Eventually, you stop being nice. You take something off the table. You walk away—or threaten to. If they need you to succeed or survive, that’s leverage.
That’s how President Trump used and is using tariffs. Not as a permanent solution—but as a short-term pressure tactic. He is using them like a poker chip to get other countries to drop their unfair tariffs.
And guess what? It worked more often than not.
Let’s walk through some examples. First the ones that don’t look like they are working today. Then the successful ones. We end with China.
Feel free to skim 1-8, but China is important strategically and does relate to the current stock market status.
For years, China stole our intellectual property, manipulated their currency (that means they made their money artificially cheap so their products looked like bargains), and flooded our markets.
Everyone in Washington wrung their hands. Trump? He acted.
He hit China with over $300 billion in tariffs. They were upset but then they sat down at the table.
The result? The “Phase One” deal. China agreed to buy more U.S. products. They promised to stop forcing American companies to hand over technology. They even lowered their own tariffs—yes, China reduced some tariffs on U.S. goods because of Trump’s pressure.
And they never would have done it if we hadn’t hit them first.
But the targets weren’t met because Biden came in and the Chinese used COVID as an excuse to bail on the deal. Worse, when Biden took office, he actually increased tariffs for things like electric vehicles and critical minerals. But he wasn’t negotiating, just supposedly trying to protect Americans, and of course it actually hurt Americans. China of course responded with their own higher tariffs, escalating tensions and impacting both economies.
2025 Trump’s back at the table now—and guess what? He’s not swinging tariffs like a club. He’s laying them down like poker chips. 124% on China. Why? To negotiate. To make a deal. Will it work? We’ll see.
But here’s the real question: who needs the deal more?
Let’s be honest—China does. Badly.
Why? Because their house of cards economy is crumbling. Land speculation. Overproduction. Ghost cities. Empty apartment towers that no one lives in, no one can sell, and no one dares tear down. And now, with exports shrinking and local governments drowning in debt, the last thing they can afford is a full-blown trade isolation.
But wait—it gets worse for Premier Xi.
While he’s busy puffing out his chest and pretending this is still 2008, look who’s sliding into China’s old chair at the global manufacturing table: India, South Korea, Vietnam. And what are they getting? 0% tariff deals. Zero. Let that sink in. They’re being handed the golden keys.
And what do they want? Not ideology. Not global dominance. Just business. Just to make the iPhones and the toasters and the couches that used to be stamped “Made in China.”
So here’s the million-dollar question: Can China figure it out before it’s too late? Before their own people, their own party insiders, decide they’re done with Xi’s ego and economic delusions?
Because if they can’t—if they won’t—then the future doesn’t belong to Beijing. It belongs to New Delhi, Hanoi, and Seoul.
And maybe, just maybe, to a guy who still knows how to negotiate.
So what’s the takeaway?
Tariffs are like medicine. Use them wrong or for too long, and you get sicker. Use them wisely for a very short time, and they can bring healing.
As conservatives who believe in liberty and small government, we don’t like tariffs. But we live in a world where other countries already use them—and they cheat while pretending to play fair.
So the question is simple: do we let ourselves be taken advantage of? Or do we push back, just long enough to make them drop their barriers?
Trump showed us the way. He didn’t start a trade war. He ended decades of surrender. And in doing so, he gave us a playbook for how to win without selling our soul—or our sovereignty.
It’s not about protectionism. It’s about strength.
Because when America stands up for fair trade, the world listens. And when we lead with conviction and courage, even the tariffs come down.
And that, my friends, is what real leadership looks like.
Data and Sources:
Country | Their Tariffs on U.S. in 2024 | U.S. Threatened Tariffs | Details/Comments | Their Current Tariffs on U.S. | U.S. Current Tariffs on Them |
China | Up to 25% | 145 | Imposed 125% retaliatory tariffs; filed WTO complaint. | 125% | 145% |
Canada | Up to 18% | 25 | Imposed 25% retaliatory tariffs; initiated WTO dispute. | 25% | 25% |
Mexico | Up to 50% | 25 | Imposed 25% retaliatory tariffs; initiated WTO dispute. | 25% | 25% |
Nigeria | Up to 75% | 14 | Maintains bans on 25 U.S. items; no tariff cuts. | Still in place | 14% |
South Africa | Up to 30% | 31 | Did not retaliate; seeking exemptions. | None | Potentially 0% |
Japan | Up to 38.5% | 24 | Engaged in talks; offering ag concessions. | Paused | Potentially 0% |
European Union | Up to 45% | 20 | Planned retaliation paused for 90 days. | Suspended | Potentially 0% |
India | Up to 150% | 26 | Offered to cut tariffs on half of U.S. imports. | Under review | Potentially 0% |
Vietnam | Up to 90% | 46 | Reduced tariffs on LNG, ethanol, ag goods. | Reduced | Potentially 0% |
South Korea | Avg 0.79% | 25 | In talks; ag concessions likely. | Paused | Potentially 0% |
Zimbabwe | Up to 35% | 18 | Eliminated all tariffs on U.S. goods. | 0% | Potentially 0% |
Note:
A laissez-faire liberal is someone who supports individual liberty, free markets, and minimal government intervention, particularly in the economy.
Historically, the term “liberal” referred to classical liberals—think Locke, Jefferson, and Bastiat—who fought for limited government and economic freedom. But in the early 20th century, progressives deliberately co-opted the term “liberal” to give their big-government agenda the moral weight of liberty. It was a branding move—to make central planning sound like freedom. But make no mistake: today’s progressives are not heirs of classical liberalism—they’re its ideological reversal.
This truth cuts both ways. Do the left truly want a nation where one day they will be hunted, targeted as the enemy, simply because the tide has turned and that is what Americans do? If we do not stop this now—if we do not draw the line—then that day
While executive orders can provide quick solutions, they are inherently fragile. They only last as long as the president who signed them remains in office—or until a new president decides to reverse them. This temporary nature highlights the urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that turns these policies into
The Role of the Church in a Pandemic
Jesus’ politicians, his senators, his representatives and lawmakers, the Pharisees and Sadducees, passed a law saying it was illegal to heal on the Sabbath. And Jesus said, I will still heal on the Sabbath. And He did.
For the last 2000
Because when we build systems that monitor themselves, we create a government that is efficient, transparent, and truly accountable to the people it serves. This is how we honor the legacy of those who built this nation on the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for
