In a normal world, which no longer exists, protectionism of local production through tariff increases -in breach of international agreements- should not come from the extreme right. At least from the neoliberal right wing that speaks of free trade, free markets. Specifically, free flow of goods - and also services - without a superior entity, such as the State, imposing burdens or restrictions.

 

In “El Ladrillo” (The Brick), the document that the University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman and his cronies drafted to be the mainstay of the Chilean dictatorship's economic policy, tariffs are called “state controls," as are taxes. In their ideology, the State is a thief that does not produce wealth and the more minimal, the better. Fewer rules, less taxation, less bureaucracy, they say, is what is needed. “Taxes and contributions are a theft of the State from the middle class of this country,” the ultra-right-wing party APRA said recently.

 

An idea that in the last few years has derived into what they call “permitology,”, a neologism dressed up as a technical term, but which is nothing more than pure ideology. We are told that it is necessary to trust - an aspirational sentiment, by the way - that anyone who develops an economic activity will put the public interest first and not his own. This mantra applies only to economic and productive activity, and cannot be extrapolated to other areas of social life, mainly those related to coercion: police, prisons, military force. Not there, the greater the expenditure and state apparatus, the better.

 

The truth is that, a contrario sensu of Trump, the dream of zero tariffs has been around in Chile for a long time. Already in 2012, during the first government of Sebastián Piñera, the possibility of completely eliminating them by 2015 was raised. This, said Jorge Desormeaux, husband of right wing candidate Evelyn Matthei, would help to “strengthen Chile as a platform for the export of manufacturing and services, because all inputs will no longer pay tariffs, in addition to the modernization of ports and other infrastructure.”

 

Today, we know that this announcement was never a reality.

 

The president of the United States represents today the pure contradiction of the Chilean ultra-right: how to combine his neoliberal economic vision with his nationalist policy. An example of this dilemma was the ominous photograph of Piñera handing Trump a mini Chilean flag inserted in that of the United States. It is the same dilemma that the right-wing in Aysén is harboring, even more strongly: with its right hand it demands that the State decreases (including its income), while with its left hand it demands greater benefits and subsidies for the private sector. 

 

But, to be fair, the measures that increase taxes on imports from the United States reveal dilemmas on this side as well. For those pushing for more local and global socio-environmental responsibility, higher tariffs should be welcome.

 

For the planet, because the more international trade is encouraged, the more greenhouse gases are generated. This, at least, as long as transportation does not switch from fossil fuels to other, lower-emission fuels. For better or worse, this sector uses more than 90 % of this type of energy and contributes between 16 and 25 % of global greenhouse gases. And, it is estimated that “carbon emissions of global exports in 2018 reached a volume of about 10 billion tons of CO2, or just under 30% of global carbon emissions.”

 

And for local biodiversity, given that encouraging community production and consumption over long distances has multiple environmental benefits. It avoids the “import” of garbage, which is what the packaging and other elements of the products that arrive from other latitudes become and that without recycling or reuse policies end up in landfills or flying elsewhere. Not to mention the chemicals used as preservatives, colorants, and flavorings in many food products. On the positive side, let's also add the economy — manufacturing and local industry, including jobs, are promoted.

 

Moreover, in exports, a practically unavoidable variable is large scale production, which encourages the transformation of ecosystems into continuous production machines. 

 

For all these reasons, Trump's tariffs could be considered good news for ecosystems. Case in point: Trump's tariff hikes are demonstrably affecting “fast fashion,” which is responsible for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions and unglamorous mega-dams in the north of Chile.

 

We know that the U.S. president's motives are not exactly to care for nature. And that his decisions go far beyond the desire to boost productivity and domestic manufacturing, since he uses them as a mechanism for political and even cultural pressure. This is nothing new: taxes are not only used to raise more money, but often also to discourage certain practices, or the consumption of certain goods and services. Or, on the contrary, to promote others through exemptions.

 

In days of uncertainty, paradigms are also on a tightrope. And this is not necessarily negative. The planetary human and ecological challenges, the advent of artificial intelligence, and even of new communication technologies, call for new ways of thinking. Yet one idea must always remain essential: we live together as humanity on a planet that is our common home, and therefore, along with individual needs, the collective interest must always be part of the equation.