Reading @D_A_Irwin on fisheries, manufacturing and subsidies in the 1790s, it's striking how relevant debates are to the present, the largest difference being that the word "bounty" could still be used readily to describe any kind of subsidy. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/ham.pdf

"[Jefferson/Madison] called for a policy of aggressive reciprocity and trade sanctions to punish Britain for its restrictive trade policies. They expected (or hoped) that this economic pressure would force Britain to change its policies, open its markets, and respect neutral..."

"...shipping. Hamilton vigorously opposed these efforts for fear that they would start a trade war that would reduce U.S. imports from Britain, thereby ruining America’s standing on credit markets by shrinking the tax base on which his plans to fund the public debt hinged."

Hamilton (1782) understood optimal tariffs well: "When they [duties] are low, a nation can trade abroad on better terms—its imports and exports will be larger—the duties will be regularly paid, and arising on a greater quantity of commodities, will yield more in the aggregate..."

Yet top intl. econ text KOM tells us "terms of trade argument...is intellectually impeccable but of doubtful usefulness. In practice, it is more often emphasized by economists as a theoretical proposition than actually used by governments as a justification for trade policy."

Different language, yes, but since the idea has been useful in describing behavior, a textbook should not call it useless. We don't say behavioral econ is useless because everyday people fail to use Kahneman & Tversky's terms to discuss their own biases. https://twitter.com/laksonomics/status/1289847778714165249?s=19