In what may be the most famous cameo in cinema history, lawyer, economist, and comedian Ben Stein portrayed an economics teacher in the 1986 film, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. In remarks that eerily foreshadow our current situation, Stein’s character intones to his classroom full of bored students:

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the . . . Anyone? Anyone? . . . the Great Depression, passed the . . . Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? . . . raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. ‘Voodoo’ economics.

Stein’s comments also seem to channel remarks Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made during a recent interview with Tucker Carlson. Bessent compared President Donald Trump’s April 2 declaration of economic independence to the supply-side revolution of 40 years ago.

Bessent has a point. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan boldly challenged the economic orthodoxy of the time by governing in accord with an earlier economic consensus that had fallen out of fashion. Reagan’s prescriptions were antithetical to the long-dominant Keynesian school of economics, but Reagan believed drastic change was needed to restore the nation’s economic vitality. The parallels to Trump are obvious.

But the differences are more noteworthy. Reaganomics put the United States at the vanguard of the supply-side revolution vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Under Trump, the U.S. is coming late to the game. The rest of the world is well ahead of us when it comes to putting up trade barriers.

The rest of the world is also leading the way in abandoning Econ 101. After supply and demand, the first thing a student taking an introductory economics course learns is gains from trade and comparative advantage. Those two concepts underpin the ideology of free trade, the belief that all goods and services should be produced where they can be produced most efficiently and then freely traded to the maximum benefit of all. No concept is more universally adhered to among economists of all political persuasions than free trade. Conversely, there is a strong correlation between nations that use the metric system and those that reject free trade.

There are three possible outcomes of Trump’s decision to move the U.S. in a more protectionist direction.

One, the proponents of free trade will be proven right. Trump’s increased tariffs will kick off a global trade war and the American economy will be badly damaged, but not as damaged as those of the rest of the world. Foreign countries need access to the world’s biggest, wealthiest consumer market more than America needs access to their markets.

Two, Trump’s increased tariffs will prompt other countries to lower their trade barriers in exchange for tariff relief in the U.S., thereby reinforcing the free trade orthodoxy both in practice as well as in theory.

Three, Trump’s increased tariffs will become a permanent feature of U.S. economic policy and spur an industrial renaissance in America. The free trade ethos so prevalent among economists will be replaced with one that favors balanced trade.

The third outcome is the intended one. If it is realized, Trump will indisputably take a place among the most consequential figures in American history. Ironically, it will be because he followed the rest of the world rather than led it.