This is an excellent article. What I'm noting below is only a few minor quibbles and random thoughts.
In the article, Ed writes:
If a foreign country imposes a tariff on our products, our best response is not to retaliate at all. In fact, we should drop all tariffs and increase imports of the products of the offending nation. Foreigners in that country would then have a lot of paper dollars that they could use to purchase our products. We would have real foreign-made consumer goods in our possession, but would only be giving up paper currency.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with a couple of statements. Mind you, these are just quibbles. Saying that 'we' should increase imports of the products of a nation that has established tariffs, is a bit confusing because 'we' could mean that individuals should buy more... but shouldn't individuals just follow their economic self-interest? Or does 'we' somehow refer to the government or nation as a whole, which I don't understand.
Also, Ed mentions that the result of us buying a lot from them would mean they would have lots of our currency and Ed says, that would only be giving up paper currency. But, any currency, absent hyper-inflation, is a very valuable store of value and worth what it will buy. (These are just quibbles because I completely agree with Ed's conclusions)
Ed mentions that tariffs cause a misallocation of resources. That's an important thought, and one you don't hear elsewhere. Economics is very much about the use of changes in supply and demand and price as information - information that is used to alter decisions. A tariff is like a trick on the economy where there is an increase in price, but it was not caused by any change in supply and demand. Like politics, where the two most basic factors are choice and force, the same two basic factors exist at the root of economics. When government intrudes with taxes or regulations they have used force to block choice and the allocation of resources isn't what it would otherwise have been.