Tariffs are often arbitrary and capricious as they don’t represent any reality, needs, or impact assessment.    It’s an indicator that economics lacks a handle on how to apply tariffs on imported and exported goods for any country.   There should be a relative assessment of all countries, based on impact assessment or Eco-Geo relativity.   Many countries experience low environmental or social impacts.   It makes no sense to impose tariffs on countries that are already suffering, or to impose tariffs that are benignly affecting the economy or the environment.   Many countries are practicing a holistic approach but are not being rewarded for it. Applying tariffs to this situation is extremely ignorant.   If a country is in need, its supply and demand are affected by tariffs. If tariffs increase, demand for their goods declines, and their economy suffers.   

I wish to draw attention to a critical issue within global trade policy, specifically concerning the current paradigm of tariff application. My observations suggest that existing tariff mechanisms are more often the product of arbitrary imposition than of nuanced economic analysis and are often detached from the realities of national economic conditions, pressing societal needs, or comprehensive environmental impact assessments.

It has become evident that conventional economic frameworks struggle to establish a universally equitable and effective method for levying duties on imported and exported goods. A more progressive approach is urgently required—one rooted in a deeper understanding of “Geo-Economic Relativity” or “Contextual Impact Assessment.” This framework would necessitate a thorough, relative evaluation of all trading nations, moving beyond purely transactional considerations to incorporate their unique socio-economic landscapes, ecological footprints, and developmental stages.

Consider the predicament of numerous nations operating under conditions of low environmental or social impact, or those grappling with significant developmental hurdles. To burden such countries with high tariffs is not only counterproductive but often profoundly unjust. Such policies can inadvertently destabilize fragile economies, exacerbate existing humanitarian challenges, and undermine global efforts toward sustainable development, even when these nations are benignly or even positively influencing the global economic and environmental landscape.

Furthermore, many societies actively embrace holistic and sustainable development practices. Yet, under current tariff regimes, they often fail to receive appropriate recognition or reward for their conscientious stewardship. Imposing punitive tariffs in such scenarios reflects a significant oversight, as it fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible global actors.

Ultimately, an arbitrary tariff structure can profoundly manipulate the fundamental dynamics of supply and demand for vulnerable economies. When tariffs on their goods increase, global demand often declines, directly reducing their export capacity and stifling their economic vitality. This creates a cycle of dependency and exacerbates disparities, rather than fostering a balanced and mutually beneficial global trade environment.

We must re-evaluate these practices to cultivate a more just, equitable, and sustainable global trading system for all.  A broad-based, cumulative totality impact assessment is recommended for every entity on Earth as a balancing mechanism. (High, Medium, Low, Detrimental Impact,1-10, Negative Impact, Positive Impact, Marginal, or other scale.) Natural Earth Striving, Natural healthy living Striving, Natural spirituality Striving, and Natural humanity Striving are important Earth ethics to consider before this balancing mechanism.

Sincerely,

Richard Thomas Simmons