> One reasonable thing to impose tariffs on is products made with slave labor,

Surely products made with slave labour should be banned outright?

But this is more of an issue of human rights than trade parity between nations. No tariff is the simplest ground case for discussing different parities.

Any artificial restrictions on trade that we impose domestically, like minimum wage, or occupational health and safety requirements, are meaningless if we have no way of placing those restrictions elsewhere. I would argue exactly the opposite of what you have said, that tariffs are the natural way of expressing these restrictions internationally.

No, I mean in fairness, no tariffs is about as fair as it gets as far as trade goes.

There are good reasons to impose tariffs otherwise. Slavery is a good reason, and the counterparty-country being a communist dictatorship is another good reason. You want to start a list?

More generally, I think you could call tariffs "fair" that seek to keep companies in your market from being punished by compliance with the regulatory environment. In an increasingly "liquid" global trade market, tariffs can let you regulate businesses in your country to a higher (read: more expensive) standard (be it to protect labor, the environment, consumers, shareholders or IP) while protecting the compliant business (and industry as a whole) from being undercut by competitors in countries that don't have those protections.

If effective, there can be a second order effect that pressures other countries to raise their standards as well.

Nah, I think that’s conflating fairness to the business environment with fairness in trade.

The fairest trade is where two people walk away after an exchange with both people feeling like they made out well in that exchange. Tariffs are a form of state interference in these exchanges because to import my fancy cheese, I have to pay more than the fair market value and shipping costs, I have to pay for a tariff as well. I just want my fancy cheese to go with my domestic wine, I don’t want to pay more than I have to for it.

Now if the tariffs on both sides of the metaphorical pond sum out to zero so that imports on both sides paid about the same in tariffs, that’s fair, but that’s rare. Tariffs aren’t about fairness though.

Now if you want to impose tariffs to be fair to the businesses operating in your regulatory environment, well that’s fair, but that’s a different type of fairness obliging a different set of entities.

To be clear, I’m not anti-tariff. My priorities might be different, and all other things being equal I prefer no tariffs to tariffs by default, but let’s not pretend they’re intended to make trade fairer. They’re revenue first, retribution second (these last two may have flipped in the 20th century, but that’s a separate argument to have), and all other effects are tertiary.

It is an unfair requirement that goods produced in your state be made with fairly compensated labor, if there is no similar requirement on goods consumed in your state.

So drop the compensation minimums or put up a political tariff until the compensation minimums in the counter-party-country match yours (if that’s how it ends). Those are your two outs.

Tariffs raise revenue and serve political ends, which can be protectionist in nature or serve some other purpose. That’s fine, as long as we recognize that we’re using them for political ends. The fairest trade of them all is going to be between two people that can make an exchange without state interference and without feeling like the other person got more than they did, and tariffs interfere with that type of exchange.

>The fairest trade of them all is going to be between two people that can make an exchange without state interference and without feeling like the other person got more than they did, and tariffs interfere with that type of exchange.

Why does your definition of fairness include a clause about state interference? I don't think you can argue in good faith about whether or not governments can act to increase fairness if your definition of fairness excludes government action.

Trade will occur at any price between the value to the consumer and the cost to the producer. In a perfectly competitive market, the agreed upon price approaches the cost to the producer, and it will necessarily be the case that the consumer got more from it. Is that fair?

This is going to sound condescending, and I'm sorry about that, but you should consider adopting a principled set of economic beliefs rather than one based exclusively on your politics.

Trade won’t occur if the costs incurred from government or State action increase the price to a level I am unwilling to pay, or else get me to reconsider a producer or service provider that doesn’t incur these additional costs. State interference isn’t a non-factor you can dismiss out of hand, honestly it probably is present in most transactions, but tariffs introduce an additional cost that specifically targets foreign producers and providers.

> This is going to sound condescending, and I'm sorry about that, but you should consider adopting a principled set of economic beliefs rather than one based exclusively on your politics.

I appreciate the consideration and that is good advice. If I had more time I would go back and re-read what I said to see if there’s anywhere my politics and economics appear to be blending together because I do actually try to keep those separate.

Primarily what I’m arguing here, or intending to be arguing are terms from a mostly neutral perspective, it’s still my perspective, so not entirely neutral.

With all due respect I enjoy reading discussions where people are agreed upon on what they are discussing, and tariffs are one of those discussions where words like “fair” get thrown around in several different directions, and inherently they are not fair and not intended to be fair. They serve a purpose, a revenue generating political purpose, maybe even several political purposes, and when words like “fair” get thrown around in such a manner, it really ruins the discussion because it’s not a discussion: it’s a tactical game of obfuscation played by whoever influenced the participants views most strongly.

So let me quote myself from a different comment chain. Perhaps you will still perceive my economics and politics to continue bleeding together; I think any considerations of economic policy are going to have some level of politics in then considering what is being discussed is a form of policy, but I haven’t put forward any explicit policies today.

> To be clear, I’m not anti-tariff. My priorities might be different, and all other things being equal I prefer no tariffs to tariffs by default, but let’s not pretend they’re intended to make trade fairer. They’re revenue first, retribution second (these last two may have flipped in the 20th century, but that’s a separate argument to have), and all other effects are tertiary.

I would say that you're talking about how tariffs are imposed at the moment, which is a different question from "do there exist tariffs which increase fairness?".

The tariff imposing party always feels justified in their actions and can tell themselves this is “leveling the playing field”.

How does the counter-party nation feel about the tariffs imposed on their exports?

You’re right to bring in why existing tariffs exist, there’s always a reason, but when fairness is the cited reason, what you are really talking about is a retaliatory tariff. “Fairness” is the rhetorical justification when people ask why the fancy cheese is more expensive than it used to be; “our cheese is worse” and “it costs them less to make it” are just harder sells.

How about forced labor for inmates?

Add it to the list, but I think that’s encompassed in “slavery”.