And that's what millions of desperate Trump voters were looking for, I suspect: easy answers to complex or intractable problems. They wanted a Big Man (or daddy) to magically fix their problems and restore White men to the forefront of American society.
I keep bleating about this but it's screamingly obvious to me that Trump has dementia. When asked how tariffs would "liberate" and "save" the economy, he repeatedly came up with word salad answers. His cabinet went on the talk shows and offered a number of wild and often mutually contradictory answers. Scott Bessent may have actual chops but as Jon Stewart said, he comes across as a student trying to bluff his way through an oral book report without having read the book.
Absolutely! I have posted that same thought here previously. He tries to bullsh*t his way through everything. There are very few topics that he actually knows something about, but he truly has little grasp on the vast majority of things that even an 8th grader knows at this point.
Who knew that being stupid wasn't an impediment to becoming POTUS?
It is a simplistic view of the world that relies on the easy answer.
And that's what millions of desperate Trump voters were looking for, I suspect: easy answers to complex or intractable problems. They wanted a Big Man (or daddy) to magically fix their problems and restore White men to the forefront of American society.
I keep bleating about this but it's screamingly obvious to me that Trump has dementia. When asked how tariffs would "liberate" and "save" the economy, he repeatedly came up with word salad answers. His cabinet went on the talk shows and offered a number of wild and often mutually contradictory answers. Scott Bessent may have actual chops but as Jon Stewart said, he comes across as a student trying to bluff his way through an oral book report without having read the book.
The irony is mind-numbing. Focusing primarily on finance/tariffs...
To make America great again (ignoring our prosperity, low unemployment, and relatively low inflation again), we're going to take our relationships with allies (no need to punish Russia any further), and piss them away while fighting with Indonesia, Vietnam, and China for the jobs their labor force will do for 10%-20% of US wages.
There are certain instances of national security that should be addressed and managed (see CHIPS Act). Oh...wait...Trump wants that canceled because it's too expensive? Trump hates the successes of others (see: Obamacare), and will destroy something he says is critical so he can somehow "save the day". It's pathetic.
One of the main problems with all of the MAGA logic on manufacturing is that they see it as an employment engine, when most of what they would describe as a manufacturing job is now or soon to be automated. These changes happen over decades, not an afternoon.
It is a simplistic view of the world that relies on the easy answer.
Whataboutism works with countries, too - and seems to be just as inaccurate as it is when he applies it to people!
The irony is mind-numbing. Focusing primarily on finance/tariffs...
To make America great again (ignoring our prosperity, low unemployment, and relatively low inflation again), we're going to take our relationships with allies (no need to punish Russia any further), and piss them away while fighting with Indonesia, Vietnam, and China for the jobs their labor force will do for 10%-20% of US wages.
There are certain instances of national security that should be addressed and managed (see CHIPS Act). Oh...wait...Trump wants that canceled because it's too expensive? Trump hates the successes of others (see: Obamacare), and will destroy something he says is critical so he can somehow "save the day". It's pathetic.
One of the main problems with all of the MAGA logic on manufacturing is that they see it as an employment engine, when most of what they would describe as a manufacturing job is now or soon to be automated. These changes happen over decades, not an afternoon.
Excerpt from today's NYT, column by Ana Swanson, explains this complex issue succinctly.
âTotally Silly.â Trumpâs Focus on Trade Deficit Bewilders Economists.
"Nearly all economists say that focusing on imbalances from country to country can be highly misleading. Last year, for example, the United States ran bilateral trade surpluses with 116 countries globally. It ran bilateral trade deficits with 114 countries, according to World Bank data.
Often these relationships just follow the flow of trade, without suggesting much about a countryâs trade practices overall. Matthew Klein, who writes about economics for The Overshoot, points out that: the United States runs a trade surplus with Australia because it sends out lots of machinery, transportation equipment and chemicals.
Australia runs a trade surplus with China, sending it iron ore, natural gas and gold.
And China runs a trade surplus with the United States by sending it car parts, electronics and batteries.
The United States also has substantial trade surpluses with the Netherlands and Singapore, as well, but thatâs not because Dutch and Singaporean people consume so many more American products than other nations. Itâs because those countries are home to major ports that import American goods.The Netherlands unloads U.S. goods in its ports and sends them throughout Europe to other consumers, while Singapore does something similar for Asia.But the trade balance is calculated based on the country the goods reaches first, not its ultimate destination. Trumpâs tariffs calculations boil down to dividing the trade deficit the U.S. runs with each country by the value of goods the U.S. imports from it. That formula means that, until U.S. imports from and exports to every country balance out, other countries will face additional tariffs, whether the nation provides the United States with advanced technology, toys, cocoa beans or corn.
The calculation ignores the idea that some countries might be better at making certain products than others, or that importing certain products could benefit Americans."
It is not about "free trade" it is about "fair trade". A world of difference even though the two seem to be conflated in discussions.
I'm looking at the tariffs in two ways. First it is a negotiation tactic with the goal of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US goods or making them equal to what the importing country imposes on the same or similar items it exports to us. Second a permanent tariff if that should happen would be much similar to a VAT only the money is collected on the front end rather than on the back end. Getting it up front eliminates any need for a bureaucracy to administer a VAT program and is much more fair as the costs are included in any downstream activity. I am against consumption taxes period as they mostly affect the poor and lower level wage earners disproportionately. Give me a flat tax, too, but that is another story.
We need to get things priced based upon their actual manufacturing expenses (true costs) without any subsidies or other forms of price manipulation. Then we can figure out what to do next. Among other things, making things ourselves keeps money in the country and recirculating to the benefit of the country as a whole. Buying from outside the country sends our money away and we lose the benefit of recirculation. The more money we can keep and recirculate internally the more our inherent overall national wealth grows. Same with energy. Drill, baby, drill and keep that money at home and from going into the hands of our enemies, making us stronger and them weaker without any military or political pressures involved.
Well then you are looking at the wrong problem, eg tariffs. Yes. our tariffs were perhaps a point or two below some others, except for those we had free trade agreements.
The trade imbalance is a problem. It is a function of manufacturers over the last 40 years moving production to cost countries, which helped keep inflation in check over those decades.
You could argue this is good - we kept inflation in check - or bad - we lost US jobs especially for essential goods likes pharmaceuticals.
But this is clearly the wrong answer/approach to perhaps a good question. I would encourage you to go watch this video from NoEnz. What especially doesnt make sense is how we are going at this alone, by attacking our allies and how it actually ignores your point about "trade fairness" and unintended consequences. Operating on a brain tumor with a brick" was the quote I think that is appropriate
