Question: You’ve been pretty hard on President Donald Trump’s tariff plan. Do you have any regrets after Wednesday’s market rebound?

Answer: No. Why would I?

Q. Well… isn’t this proof the strategy worked?

A. No, it’s proof imposing an enormous tax increase has a deleterious effect on the economy, as reflected by the impersonal judgement of the market. Those market convulsions were enough, in part, to prompt a reversal of policy.

Q. But isn’t this all part of Trump’s plan? Accept some short-term pain to affect a more advantageous trade position in the longer term?

A. Well, if it is, he ought to let his team in on it. Part of the seismic reaction of the market was due to the fact some members of his inner circle (Peter Navarro) swore this was permanent U.S. policy, others (Scott Bessent) claiming it was a negotiating tactic.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Q. But what about the “bad actors” who have been abusing our good will by imposing unfair tariffs of their own?

A. Taiwan, Japan and Israel were certainly not “bad actors”, were they? But they still got slapped ridiculously hard. Even the baseline 10% seems excessive for them. But yes, you do have a point several countries are indeed making American companies pay more to sell American products there than they pay to sell theirs here; and that can, and should, be addressed with aggressive trade negotiations. And, I will add if anything good can come of all this, it would be for other countries to call President Trump’s bluff and offer to drop their tariffs to zero or near-zero, as some have already done. But trade negotiations are complicated, and do not happen overnight — or even in 90 days. There is not, even for a free-market apostle as myself, such a thing as truly “free” trade — for instance, we don’t want free trade in narcotics or fentanyl precursors do we? Or pornography? And in any case, the potential trade benefits do not justify the domestic economic damage done by the blanket tariff approach espoused by Navarro and co. It’s the economic equivalent of an angst-ridden teenager threatening to get back at his parents by dropping out of school and doing drugs.

Q. Does China count as a bad actor?

A. Yes, and that’s one country where this sort of economic warfare can be justified (Russia is another); though even there the case can be made a better approach would be to simply economically isolate the People’s Republic by increasing trade with other Asian countries, like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Taiwan has been clamoring for a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. for years. Of course, all the conversation to this point is assuming changes in international trade dynamics are the reason for President Trump’s tariffs.

Q. What else might it be?

A. There is a school of thought that suggests the tariffs are being used as a tool to deal with the national debt. Tariffs, as you know, serve to subsidize the attrition of the dollar, which in turn makes treasury bonds more attractive, potentially encouraging other countries to buy up more U.S. debt.

Q. But?

A. But there is more to it than that, like faith in the U.S. economy long term. In the aftershocks of “Liberation Day”, the yield on 10-year bonds shot up to 4.5%, and to more than  5% for 30-year. That means someone was dumping treasury bonds. Turns out it was Japan. So if friendly countries are not going to buy our debt, either we are in serious trouble, or someone like India will end up owning the lion’s share of it. I refer you to Robert Kaplan’s masterful book “Monsoon” to explain why that might not be such a good idea. In any case, that kind of play takes years to materialize, and is essentially a lazy way to deal with the unconscionable national debt, one that dodges the need to take tough but necessary action, like reforming entitlements.

Q. Doesn’t Congress have a role in all this?

A. Glad you asked. They certainly should. For starters, they ought to reclaim their authority of tariffs; President Trump’s circumvention of the constitutionally established duties of the branches by invoking an “emergency” is ill-considered, wrong and will come back to haunt Republicans under a future Democratic administration. Congress also needs to focus on strong pro-growth economic policy to mitigate the damage of the tariffs.

Q. Like making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent?

A. The 2017 Paul Ryan tax cuts, but yes.

Q. The states should do the same correct? But isn’t Colorado actively seeking to undo the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and replace the flat tax with a progressive tax? Which would have a constricting effect and exacerbate the recessionary effects of the tariffs?

A. You make a very good point. I wish I’d made it myself.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.