I don't remember who said but it. But someone said, Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, his haters take him literally but not seriously.
There is a national security angle of the American steel industry. Specific grades of steel can currently be made by the American steel industry. If the American steel industries are allowed to fail and go out of business then all products will possibly be made from inferior foreign steel so that tanks, aircraft, ships , bridges and all buildings with steel components become inferior and more like to fail, fall apart or collapse. As in to cause the degradation and reduction in quality of aircraft, tanks, ships, multistory buildings and steel components used in helping to build anything. Some new bridges were built in Australia using substandard foreign steel . They bent , buckled and were extremely dangerous and unusable because the metal was garbage grade unsuitable for building bridges and cost millions of dollars to build bridges that were worthless garbage that was undafe and unusable. That is potentially the future of all new American bridges, multistory buildings or anything else made out of steel if the American steel industry is allowed to fail. If the American Federal government allows the American steel industry to be put out of business then potentially new bridges and multistory buildings and all military equipment can be degraded to third world standards where the steel used in multistory buildings is brittle or soft and causes many multistory buildings to collapse.
Thanks for pointing this out. Are there more examples of this happening in other developed countries, or is Australia the most prominent example do far?
@jvcx45 I don't know about other countries but I believe that possibly 3 or more bridges were built in the state of New South Wales in Australia out of Chinese steel where they were made of metal, but not the correct metal strengths , so they were pulling themselves apart under their own weight. Was in some news reports on t.v. .Could not be used and were death traps that could collapse at any time. One cost around 3 million dollars. I believe that was a total waste of money that could not be used. It was the cheapest quote for that design of bridge and it was made of metal. The USA and western countries are likely better at making different grades of steel and other metals. If jet planes, tanks , ships and multistory buildings are built out of the wrong grades and strengths of their metals, they are more likely to fall apart. So if the USA wants its multistory buildings to not collapse and it's machines built of reasonable quality metals it needs its own steel industry to keep operating. Quality produced metals are needed for aircraft and rockets. Better to pay slightly more than to have new bridges, multistory buildings collapsing everywhere and planes and machinery self destructing for no reason other than incorrect strength metals being used in their construction.
To the question of "solar panels wash up on the beech, would we destroy them?" - I wouldn't suggest relying on them if you know the oceans were strategically against you.
Free trade does not exclude tariffs. Growing up on the border I can tell you tariffs and other fees have always been levied. Tariffs can protect a nations industries from dumping to eliminate all competition. Tariffs did not cause the Great Depression last longer in the United States. The NEW DEAL dragged the depression out it wasn’t until about 1949 that it ended. By 1953 we were in another recession. The federal reserve neither does not end recessions but starts them like small forest fires. We are in a real blaze now with our money burning in our wallets. Heavy Chinese tariffs are needed to protect what little industrial capacity that remains. Steel, aluminium, and small manufacturing is being wiped out. A quick turn to regional electrical grids, small nuclear power plants and coal fired power is needed for cheap power. We do not use slave labor unless we import its products. Are we to be that kind of nation or will we develop our own resources. Turn your back on wind and solar. They are child’s toys. They destroy the environment that so zany want to save. Go, Trump, Go.
Two things I've learned about politics following the 2024 election cycle 1. A lot of people will follow people blindly 2. The world is comprised of thieves, beggars, and fools.
I’ve always been a free trade fan. I agree with the net-win for everyone argument in a vacuum. The place where I’m undecided is when national security comes into play. Is it reasonable to engage in some form of protectionism to ensure that your military is not reliant on foreign adversaries, the way we are with drones produced in China? Or semi-conductors in a potentially vulnerable Taiwan? I haven’t fully decided, but it seems to be a reasonable argument.
I agree, the Trump and Biden China tariffs are good policy. But, how is it good policy to place an especially high tariff on Canada or Mexico, countries Trump negotiated a free trade deal with, himself? Where is the national security angle on that? How will other countries take trade negotiations seriously when Trump is just going to rip them up whenever he wants?
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 the funny thing is China just put export controls on certain critical minerals the US military needs. Maybe for national security reasons Canada should also put export controls in place.
Canada imposes a high GST. The EU imposes a VAT on every product that enters the union. Even China has a VAT. The incidence of taxation for the US falls heavily on production (corporate, payroll, income, capital) while other countries tax consumption. This imbalance has distorted economic decision making in the United States. An across the board tariff of ten percent would help to balance this disparity. Further, for all of those lighting their hair on fire, the Japanese yen is currently about 180 to the USD, and it was 90 not too long ago. To argue that tariffs will explode world trade dynamics is disingenuous at best. Oh, and China? Not a market economy. Not a rational actor. Trading with a nonrational actor ruins the counterparty's economy.😊
Ya tariffs on China make sense. But I don't think the US has higher income or corporate taxes than Canada or the US. And if it does, and your right that this is the issue, why would the solution be to declare trade war on the world instead of just passing a sales tax and cutting income taxes?
That was a great interview... What I felt was Trump's policies can in the interim speed growth overall, but it will politically to a layperson get attributed to tariffs (at least in part). The free market aspects will drive a lot of success but maybe with some brushfire-type recession on the way to prosperity. Tariffs can bring back _some_ American nostalgia in terms of the old type of jobs, but it will come with a fairly big price tag in the long term as well as hurting jobs related to international trade that already exist. It will be harder to free the economy later, and may even result in direct pay-offs as they had to do with NZ farmers. We'll see what he actually does.
All taxes are going to limit economic growth, the question is what is the tax that has the least impact, because at the end of the day there are going to be taxes. And the answer is a tax on land values, but after that, tariffs are on the better end. But 25% tariffs on Canada? I don't see it as good policy to economically attack an ally. Same is true with mexico but at least there is an argument around lowering wages.
Sadly talking about economic reality is welcome for minimum wage, but for the just as dangerous protectionism. It's a clear contradiction in modern conservatism.
@@Tommy-the-coffee-addict historical conservative economics was economic nationalism (protectionism/tariffs/industrial policy).. basically the government tipping the playing field in favor of domestic manufacturing and jobs. All Republican presidents from Lincoln to Eisenhower believed that.. even free trade Reagan used protectionism to save Harley Davidson from being run out of business by Japanese competition and he strong armed foreign car manufacturers to set up production here in the USA so Americans could get the jobs.
Thank God the Founding Fathers rejected Adam smith’s free trade ideology and embraced protectionism and industrial policy. South Korea, Japan, Germany and England all developed using tariffs/protectionism. I like Nick, but he’s wrong on this
What founding father are you talking about? The colonies had to trade for just about everything. Those countries you listed developed through international trade. Just the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to trade with someone who wants to trade with you on mutually agreed terms because some third party who is not involved in the transaction wants your business instead... I don't see the moral principal that justifies that interference. It's using laws to help create monopolies.
@ Hamilton was a protectionist, as were most founding fathers.. Jefferson changed his free trade position after the war of 1812 when he saw Britain using trade as a weapon to keep America from industrializing. Germany, Japan and South Korea all developed under heavy government control (Industrial Policy) , or state led capitalism, not the “invisible hand“. The government actually built steel mills, chemical plants , armaments factories and heavy manufacturing businesses like shipyards and auto plants. These businesses were subsidized, funded, and sheltered by government action, NOT the free market. They were only exposed to foreign competition slowly as they matured. This destroys the free trade/free market, libertarian argument that only the private sector can grow the economy and not the government.
In addition, Hamilton was a huge statist. He was wrong on most things. Jefferson was wrong in some instances. He let his heart overcome his logic when it came to his hatred of England.
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-WR6Zq7Qec/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't remember who said but it. But someone said, Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, his haters take him literally but not seriously.
There is a national security angle of the American steel industry. Specific grades of steel can currently be made by the American steel industry. If the American steel industries are allowed to fail and go out of business then all products will possibly be made from inferior foreign steel so that tanks, aircraft, ships , bridges and all buildings with steel components become inferior and more like to fail, fall apart or collapse. As in to cause the degradation and reduction in quality of aircraft, tanks, ships, multistory buildings and steel components used in helping to build anything. Some new bridges were built in Australia using substandard foreign steel . They bent , buckled and were extremely dangerous and unusable because the metal was garbage grade unsuitable for building bridges and cost millions of dollars to build bridges that were worthless garbage that was undafe and unusable. That is potentially the future of all new American bridges, multistory buildings or anything else made out of steel if the American steel industry is allowed to fail. If the American Federal government allows the American steel industry to be put out of business then potentially new bridges and multistory buildings and all military equipment can be degraded to third world standards where the steel used in multistory buildings is brittle or soft and causes many multistory buildings to collapse.
Thanks for pointing this out. Are there more examples of this happening in other developed countries, or is Australia the most prominent example do far?
There’s a national security angle to every government abuse
@jvcx45 I don't know about other countries but I believe that possibly 3 or more bridges were built in the state of New South Wales in Australia out of Chinese steel where they were made of metal, but not the correct metal strengths , so they were pulling themselves apart under their own weight. Was in some news reports on t.v. .Could not be used and were death traps that could collapse at any time. One cost around 3 million dollars. I believe that was a total waste of money that could not be used. It was the cheapest quote for that design of bridge and it was made of metal. The USA and western countries are likely better at making different grades of steel and other metals. If jet planes, tanks , ships and multistory buildings are built out of the wrong grades and strengths of their metals, they are more likely to fall apart. So if the USA wants its multistory buildings to not collapse and it's machines built of reasonable quality metals it needs its own steel industry to keep operating. Quality produced metals are needed for aircraft and rockets. Better to pay slightly more than to have new bridges, multistory buildings collapsing everywhere and planes and machinery self destructing for no reason other than incorrect strength metals being used in their construction.
To the question of "solar panels wash up on the beech, would we destroy them?" - I wouldn't suggest relying on them if you know the oceans were strategically against you.
The US can institute its own sales tax like all the other developed countries. Don’t cry victim but refuse to change.
Free trade does not exclude tariffs. Growing up on the border I can tell you tariffs and other fees have always been levied.
Tariffs can protect a nations industries from dumping to eliminate all competition. Tariffs did not cause the Great Depression last longer in the United States. The NEW DEAL dragged the depression out it wasn’t until about 1949 that it ended. By 1953 we were in another recession. The federal reserve neither does not end recessions but starts them like small forest fires. We are in a real blaze now with our money burning in our wallets.
Heavy Chinese tariffs are needed to protect what little industrial capacity that remains. Steel, aluminium, and small manufacturing is being wiped out.
A quick turn to regional electrical grids, small nuclear power plants and coal fired power is needed for cheap power.
We do not use slave labor unless we import its products. Are we to be that kind of nation or will we develop our own resources.
Turn your back on wind and solar. They are child’s toys. They destroy the environment that so zany want to save.
Go, Trump, Go.
Two things I've learned about politics following the 2024 election cycle
1. A lot of people will follow people blindly
2. The world is comprised of thieves, beggars, and fools.
I have half a brain, but the level of BS reasoning in this convo is too loud.
I’ve always been a free trade fan. I agree with the net-win for everyone argument in a vacuum. The place where I’m undecided is when national security comes into play.
Is it reasonable to engage in some form of protectionism to ensure that your military is not reliant on foreign adversaries, the way we are with drones produced in China? Or semi-conductors in a potentially vulnerable Taiwan?
I haven’t fully decided, but it seems to be a reasonable argument.
I agree, the Trump and Biden China tariffs are good policy.
But, how is it good policy to place an especially high tariff on Canada or Mexico, countries Trump negotiated a free trade deal with, himself? Where is the national security angle on that? How will other countries take trade negotiations seriously when Trump is just going to rip them up whenever he wants?
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 the funny thing is China just put export controls on certain critical minerals the US military needs. Maybe for national security reasons Canada should also put export controls in place.
@@pin65371 I assume that's a joke, but I don't see how it could help anyone.
Canada imposes a high GST. The EU imposes a VAT on every product that enters the union. Even China has a VAT. The incidence of taxation for the US falls heavily on production (corporate, payroll, income, capital) while other countries tax consumption. This imbalance has distorted economic decision making in the United States. An across the board tariff of ten percent would help to balance this disparity.
Further, for all of those lighting their hair on fire, the Japanese yen is currently about 180 to the USD, and it was 90 not too long ago. To argue that tariffs will explode world trade dynamics is disingenuous at best.
Oh, and China? Not a market economy. Not a rational actor. Trading with a nonrational actor ruins the counterparty's economy.😊
Ya tariffs on China make sense. But I don't think the US has higher income or corporate taxes than Canada or the US.
And if it does, and your right that this is the issue, why would the solution be to declare trade war on the world instead of just passing a sales tax and cutting income taxes?
Also Canada has a VAT of 5%? That isn't very high. I certainly don't think it justifies a 25% tariff.
That was a great interview...
What I felt was Trump's policies can in the interim speed growth overall, but it will politically to a layperson get attributed to tariffs (at least in part). The free market aspects will drive a lot of success but maybe with some brushfire-type recession on the way to prosperity. Tariffs can bring back _some_ American nostalgia in terms of the old type of jobs, but it will come with a fairly big price tag in the long term as well as hurting jobs related to international trade that already exist. It will be harder to free the economy later, and may even result in direct pay-offs as they had to do with NZ farmers. We'll see what he actually does.
All taxes are going to limit economic growth, the question is what is the tax that has the least impact, because at the end of the day there are going to be taxes.
And the answer is a tax on land values, but after that, tariffs are on the better end.
But 25% tariffs on Canada? I don't see it as good policy to economically attack an ally. Same is true with mexico but at least there is an argument around lowering wages.
Sadly talking about economic reality is welcome for minimum wage, but for the just as dangerous protectionism.
It's a clear contradiction in modern conservatism.
@@Tommy-the-coffee-addict historical conservative economics was economic nationalism (protectionism/tariffs/industrial policy).. basically the government tipping the playing field in favor of domestic manufacturing and jobs. All Republican presidents from Lincoln to Eisenhower believed that.. even free trade Reagan used protectionism to save Harley Davidson from being run out of business by Japanese competition and he strong armed foreign car manufacturers to set up production here in the USA so Americans could get the jobs.
Modern being the 1920’s.
Thank God the Founding Fathers rejected Adam smith’s
free trade ideology and embraced protectionism and industrial policy. South Korea, Japan, Germany and England all developed using tariffs/protectionism.
I like Nick, but he’s wrong on this
What founding father are you talking about? The colonies had to trade for just about everything. Those countries you listed developed through international trade. Just the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to trade with someone who wants to trade with you on mutually agreed terms because some third party who is not involved in the transaction wants your business instead... I don't see the moral principal that justifies that interference. It's using laws to help create monopolies.
@ Hamilton was a protectionist, as were most founding fathers.. Jefferson changed his free trade position after the war of 1812 when he saw Britain using trade as a weapon to keep America from industrializing.
Germany, Japan and South Korea
all developed under heavy government control (Industrial Policy) , or state led capitalism, not the “invisible hand“.
The government actually built steel mills, chemical plants , armaments factories and heavy manufacturing businesses like shipyards and auto plants. These businesses were subsidized, funded, and sheltered by government action, NOT the free market. They were only exposed to foreign competition slowly as they matured. This destroys the free trade/free market, libertarian argument that only the private sector can grow the economy and not the government.
@@johncronin6977Your observation is incorrect.
@ not really
In addition, Hamilton was a huge statist. He was wrong on most things. Jefferson was wrong in some instances. He let his heart overcome his logic when it came to his hatred of England.