The laws of economics often appear as inconvenient in Washington, where lawmakers tend to manipulate or ignore fundamental principles to suit their desired outcomes.

Democrats argue that raising taxes increases government revenue, drawing false analogies like higher prices leading to unaffected consumption (elasticity of demand), despite economic realities.

The Congressional Budget Office misjudged Medicaid sign-ups under ObamaCare due to a lack of understanding of economic principles, indicating a preference for free benefits by individuals.

Republicans, like their counterparts, sometimes fail to acknowledge fundamental economic principles when making decisions, as evidenced by recent statements on upcoming tariffs by the White House.

Peter Navarro of the White House predicts significant tariff revenue, suggesting an 18 percent average tariff to raise $600 billion annually, aiming for substitution of foreign goods with American products.

While Navarro’s revenue projections may seem mathematically plausible, they rely on assumptions that contradict the principles of human behavior, specifically the concept of substitution when prices increase.

Trump aims to boost American manufacturing through tariff-induced product substitution, intending to counter the impacts of previous trade deals like NAFTA on the textile industry and its communities.

Navarro’s projections rely on consumer behavior contradicting the intended purpose of tariffs, as American consumers must continue purchasing foreign goods at elevated prices to match the revenue expectations.

The concept that one cannot have it both ways is relevant in understanding the inconsistencies in Trump’s tariff policies and the potential outcomes on American job creation and domestic production.

Trump’s stance on tariffs has various implications, making it crucial to avoid using misleading calculations or justifications while analyzing economic policies that impact the nation’s welfare.