I should have added that both models regard shocks to labor and trade to be destructive. Neither model favors broad (nontargeted) tariffs or unilaterally shredding trade agreements. These measures appealed to uninformed voters as appearing tough and focused upon American interests. American industry and the consumer would immediately regret such measures. When in office Trump boasted of ending NAFTA and replacing it with NAFTA 2.0.(USMCA) Whatever you want to call it, it created a free trade zone with certain conditions and parameters. We have similar trade agreements with the much of the free world. U.S. Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements and Other Trade Agreements | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Recent post-election comments have assured the corporate world that Trump was just bluffing.
Howard Lutnick, co-chair of the Trump transition said: “If we said, ‘We’re going to tariff you the way you tariff us,’ do you think they’re going to allow Mercedes and all these Japanese companies and Porsches and BMWs to all of a sudden have 100 percent tariffs in America?” he said. “Of course not. They’re going to come and negotiate, and their tariffs are going to come down, and finally Ford and General Motors are going to be able to sell in these places.”
Some are taking comfort in comments like this. A check with reality however shows that the comments have no relationship to the facts. A 2.5% EU tariff on Ford and GM cars (produced in the US, not those already made in EU) is mirrored by the 2.5% tariff the US has on Mercedes and BMW. Japan has no tariff on US made cars and we have none on theirs as part of a trade agreement.