"Donald Trump has had a lifelong adherence to the most primitive form of trade protectionism imaginable. That is, the utterly mistaken presumption that trade deficits are mainly a result of cheating by nefarious foreigners and/or stupid trade deals foisted on the economy by Washington Swamp creatures.
"Thus, according to the Donald America will not start winning economically again until a tough businessman/negotiator like himself brings the hammer down on cheaters and slams the gates on imports by tariffs and any other means necessary ...
"What is worse ... [his crackpot advisers] see trade is way too important to be left to the whims of the free market. ... Thus, if you are an exporter [adviser Peter] Navarro insists that you get state approval for what you may or may not sell to the Chinese. And if you are an importer, you might as well get ready to pay a stiff tariff upcharge for the audacity of sourcing the lowest cost of global supply rather than buying from red-blooded, albeit higher cost, American vendors. ....
"To be sure, there is a giant problem with the $20 trillion of cumulative current account deficits (2024 $) the US has racked up continuously since the mid-1970s. But those massive, chronic trade shortfalls and the devastating off-shoring of domestic industry which had accompanied them are the result of bad money — not bad trade deals, bad actors abroad, or the free market at work. ...
"Stated differently, when you look for the culprit behind the collapse of America’s trade account and industrial base ... its wasn’t the Chicoms over there or incompetent trade policy officials over here. It was the money printers domiciled ten blocks from the White House. ...
"[N]o more insidious notion is at loose in the beltway [in this context] than the Trade Nanny predicate which underlies the Donald’s revived attacks on China’s alleged technology theft and 'economic aggression.' ... [W]hat actually unfolded [under the Trump presidency] was the very opposite of a traditional trade skirmish. Instead, it was an unprecedented act of Washington-led economic aggression against another sovereign state that happens to have unfortunately saddled itself with a statist economic model that we call the Red Ponzi. ... [T]he attack of Navarro and the Donald on China was an attack on the entire warp and woof of its jerry-built $15 trillion red capitalist economy. ...
"[T]he prospective return of [Trump's deplorable gang of trade advisers] to the top trade policy positions in Washington ought to scare the living bejesus out of everyone. ... Navarro is the most dangerous economic ignoramus and fanatical nationalist ever to hold high office in the White House; and Lighthizer is a career swamp creature and the walking embodiment of Washington’s crony capitalist system. ...
"[A] return to the Trumpian Trade Wars is [not] a secondary matter. "What is actually brewing is an epic upheaval of international commerce that will bury Washington even deeper in the Swamp and batter the living standards of Flyover America in trade-based inflation that will make the recent fly-up on Joe Biden’s watch look like a walk in the park."
4 comments:
Totally agree with this post.Would like to hear your opinion sometime on why so many former “libertarians “ went down the Trump rabbit hole. Seems very odd.
I’m even more scared of what a Trump presidency would do in terms of condoning Russian aggression and what that will lead to for the whole world. The US system of checks and balances usually means one lone president can’t too much damage by themselves, but foreign affairs is the biggest exception, He wants to cut aid to Ukraine, and seems to be following in the footsteps of Chamberlain and suggesting he will bring peace by negotiating some Munich-like Agreement.
I’ll give you mine, and I think Peter has said something similar recently. They got so caught up in what they’re against, combined with their negativity and pessimism generally, that what they’re against mattered more than what they were for. Trump makes a show of giving the middle finger to the left, and the left hate him, so they forgive or ignore his sins. He’s an enemy of their enemy (on the left), so they regard him as their friend.
@Mark your comment “ They got so caught up in what they’re against, combined with their negativity and pessimism generally, that what they’re against mattered more than what they were for” Explains it perfectly.
Post a Comment