Alan Greenspan says Trump’s Tariff Policies are ‘Insane’ and I agree.
> Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called President Donald Trump’s tariff policies “insane” and said “why we’re doing it probably is very deep in the psyche of somebody.”
> Responding to a question about China at an event in New York on Wednesday, he said both sides lose out in such a clash.
> “It’s an excise tax, and people think of tariffs other than what it is, it’s a tax and everybody engaged in warfare of this type, it would mean that you’re withdrawing credit or purchasing power from a whole series of countries,” Greenspan said at New York University. “There are victors and there are losers in a tariff fight, but that doesn’t say that a more important issue is both are losing, it’s just the winner loses less.”
Greenspan also said the notion that China would outrace the U.S. in all economic respects “is a mistake,” pointing to their lower gross domestic product per capital.
Greenspan is correct on that as well.
Greenspan BS Detector
It’s usually easy to detect when Greenspan is right or wrong about something.
Generally, if the public agrees with what Greenspan says, he’s wrong, and vice versa.
Art of the Deal
In this case, Trump’s die hard supporters believe the crazy notion that Trump really understands the “Art of the Deal”.
Trump did not even wrote the book.
Please note the ‘Art of the Deal’ Ghostwriter Says Trump is ‘Deeply Disturbed’ and ‘Utterly Untrustworthly’
Arguably, that is carrying things too far, but Trump is no brilliant deal maker or businessman.
Enter the Democrats
The Democrats generally want to support the unions, and that’s always the wrong thing to do.
The Wall Street Journal provides an interesting case in point: Democrats’ House Victory Complicates Passage of New Nafta, Trade Deals
> Most Democrats, backed by unions, have voiced skepticism about liberalizing trade unless the deals allow workers in the other countries to take advantage of higher labor standards and wages. Passage “will depend on whether unions will want to push it,” a senior White House official said.
NAFTA liberalized virtually nothing. Rather, it is essentially the same deal we had before.
So here we are. Trump is bragging about a deal that changed nothing and Democrats want even more Tariff stupidity.
Democrats and Republicans Skeptical
With Democrats and Republicans skeptical of free trade but Greenspan an advocate, we have a clear winner.
Not only does this setup fit my Greenspan rule, it fits a more obvious rule:
When Democrats and Republicans both want the same thing, it’s nearly always worth taking the opposite side.
EU Silliness
Note that the EU and UK just finalized a 585 page document on a “customs union”.
Yes, it’s asinine.
Good Free Trade Agreement
A good free trade agreement can be written on a napkin with a crayon.
“Effective today, all tariffs and subsidies on all goods and services are eliminated“
That holds true no matter what any other nation does. The first nation to do so will have a monstrous advantage in jobs and wealth creation.
Greenspan was generally wrong!
Absolutely
Greenspan was generally wrong!He warned of Irrational Exuberance years early, then embraced the productivity miracle in 2000.
Consistently right about free trade. https://t.co/dKYP1XQ8IU
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) November 15, 2018
Related Articles
- Reflections and Reader Comments on Free Trade: “China Doesn’t Play Fair!”
- Dear NAFTA Bashers: You Need New Charts
- Disputing Trump’s NAFTA “Catastrophe” with Pictures: What’s the True Source of Trade Imbalances?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“Not one nation has stepped forward to take the “monstrous advantage in jobs and wealth creation” unilateral free trade will provide. Funny, I wonder why?”
That’s easy: It’s “good politics” but extremely bad business to give into unions and companies that want subsidies.
“good politics” = vote buying
Trump aligned himself with union protectionist Democrats
It got him elected
It’s too easy to hide behind the absurd “fair trade” mantra.
I think it’s reasonable for someone to believe Trump’s tariffs are counter-productive, even insane, and still not believe unfettered free trade is an unalloyed good. Those two positions are not mutually exclusive. On this issue, I guess we can agree to disagree.
Most of us see free trade as the ideal, the ultimate objective, but it is worth giving some sober reflection to what we mean by “unfettered free trade” — because the words don’t mean the same thing to everyone.
For example, there are no tariffs on goods shipped between the several States in the US. Free trade – yes? But then California puts on special requirements on gasoline, which results in fuel produced in other States not being marketable in California. There are still no monetary tariffs, but now there is a non-tariff barrier. Is that still free trade?
The deeper one dives into that rabbit hole, the more gradations appear. Is it free trade if environmental and labor standards are different between jurisdictions? Free trade between the several States includes free movement of capital and free movement of labor — how about free trade between separate nations? Is it free trade if one jurisdiction provides subsidies?
There are a lot of issues beyond monetary tariffs involved in what different people define as “free trade”.
I agree. I think many people talk past each other on this issue because the definitions and personal biases they bring to the discussion differ in significant ways. Me included. So many social, environmental, and political issues impact trade to varying degrees. It is such a nuanced and multi-faceted issue that I think it defies simple solutions.
“If steel costs $200 a ton to produce they will sell it for $150 or even $50 and lose money hand over fist.”
Hooray! That is good for US consumers and US businesses that use steel. This should be easy to see.
China is subsidizing the US!
Yes. That is what I said. It is great for margins in the short run (20-30yrs), but what happens when we lose all means of production (Computers, Servers, Steel, Communications) and then China cuts us off and launches an attack in 50-100yrs.
Do EBITDA margins really matter then. It is an economic war, not to win on economic terms where the winner makes the most money. The economic war is a prelude to a larger goal for China. It is masterful, because they are playing in to our greed and short run profit maximization machine. They subsidize us in the short run and own everything in the long run. Americans are seeing this happen first hand. They may not understand what it is but they understand money, jobs and the means of production are fleeing and the nature of work is evolving here to be less reliant on producing hard goods. Whether it is robotics, AI, or new people manned factories being established here, the US can not be left relying on our enemies to provide all of our inputs we need for basic economic infrastructure.
Congratulations Mish, you got this article posted on ZH. However, the comments there were not exactly “appreciative”.
“However, the comments there were not exactly “appreciative”.”
“In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are,” He said. “Tell them what is wrong, and why, and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you, and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”
Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job — in fact, he had asked for it — but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it?
“Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and buildup a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.” . . . ”
That’s okay, ZH is schizophrenic these days. If a story is about the MIC or Goldman, they see clearly. Otherwise, the new orange flavored “Hope and Change” Kool-Aid still sells well there.
ZH was fantastic in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when people were genuinely trying to grok what was going on and where things were headed. Alas, over the ensuing years they gradually convinced themselves that the teleprompter reader was the cause of every conceivable ailment that faced America. The comments migrated from the finance articles to stuff like NFL players kneeling. Part of this was due to people like Peter Schiff claiming the sky was falling for too long, leading to doom fatigue, but there was a generous dollop of willful ignorance too.
They used to be a must-read site with an interesting mix of opinions, but now you can predict the comments as soon as articles are posted.
He is part of 1% and Wall St!
Only GLOBALISTS, wall St, US multi-Nationals and the top1% complaining about TARIFFS! Why? Their mobile capital can go anywhere in world and exploit the global labor arbtrage as they have done since 2000! They see ONLY bottomline!
They don’t care for the Wage workers of America or in fact of ANY COUNTRY!
What no one is touching upon and where Trump is correct (whether he realizes this or not) is that we are at war. China has been at war with the US for 30yrs and we have not fought back. I am a strong libertarian and I believe in free people and free markets. In a normal world where rationale actors are making decisions in their ECONOMIC self interest free trade provides the best outcome for all parties.
However, China does not care about making money, they care about controlling key industries and sources of production. If steel costs $200 a ton to produce they will sell it for $150 or even $50 and lose money hand over fist. They are doing this in solar and many other industries they deem strategic, while creating JVs with tech companies to steal all of their IP to use against us. Losing money does not matter to them. What matters is keeping the masses employed and fulfilling their mercantilist agenda.
In the short run (10-20yrs) it is great to get input costs down and profit margins up for US companies. On a sustained basis (50-100yrs) the US is weakening its defenses and self-reliance. China is playing the long game and the US is worried about next quarters P/L.
Because of this uneconomic behavior China has created a credit bubble and has massive structural issues. They only way to expose this and stop them is to ratchet up the heat NOW and make their model implode on itself. The longer the time horizon for them the more we are playing on their turf, to shorten the time frame, this is our home field advantage.
The implications of this are large. The US and the world will go through large amounts of pain to win this war. But hey, war is never pretty or clean. Are tariffs the correct solution? I have no idea, but you cannot look at this SOLELY through an economic lens otherwise you are missing the big picture.
Agree with you 100%. Was trying to get that point across but you did it much better!
Thank you for laying out the situation viz-a-viz China so clearly, DeeMiddy. You are absolutely right – this is about more than getting cheap consumer goods today. A largely free economy meeting a mercantilist economy is a bit like a lamb meeting a wolf.
It is not necessary for us to make the Chinese “model implode on itself”. But it is essential that we reverse the implosion of the US model – where we have lost the ability to manufacture key goods, such as large electrical transformers. That implosion has largely been self-imposed damage.
I don’t think many people would argue that tariffs are the best solution. The optimum approach for the US would probably be to roll back excessive regulation, reform the dysfunctional educational system, and straighten out the tax code. This would create the basis for making it economically viable to bring back offshored manufacturing capacity – and would also bring back needed jobs and tax revenue, and create meaningful domestic profit opportunities. If required, these reforms could be backed up with non-tariff barriers (as China and others use) – say, import goods only from countries which match or exceed US standards on environmental protection and wage levels.
However, those kinds of reforms would require action from our bought-and-paid-for Political Class. In the absence of those reforms, a President has to play the cards he has.
You say:
“I am a strong libertarian”
from this post you are not libertarian — you are mercantilist — them vs us — zero sum game.
“Because of this uneconomic behavior China has created a credit bubble and has massive structural issues.”
are you saying USA do not have same?
“a President has to play the cards he has.”
salvation by politics — not good believe
I am a realist. I have been in meetings with the PBOC, ICBC, and the communist party and they think in zero sum terms and they have an agenda. They are not free traders or everyone gets richer together type of people, they are COMMUNISTS. They want to own all means of production to destroy the west.
Our banking system is way more capitalized and solid than theirs. We absolutely have a structural debt issue driven by horrible fiscal and monetary policy that needs to resolve itself. But that has nothing to do with not destroying your means of production.
I work in the “defense” industry and if for no other reason that national security tariffs make alot of sense. The US doesn’t create the steel types anymore for serious building, for example. I’d like to use Macs at work, can’t do it since they’re all made in China. This is a serious handicap for the work I do: I’m stuck with POS Dells that run Linux (the Linux part is OK, but OS X would be alot better many times).
Aside from this, in a perfect world not having tariffs would be fine but this is not a perfect world. Example: I haven’t even tried to patent my intellectual property in China, my lawyers say with 100% certainty it would just be stolen.
The trade deficit is funding China’s military build up, this is a strategic disaster. We bought the South China Sea for China. Need I say more? I won’t even address the issue of jobs having gone to China, the defense issues are more than sufficient.
(True, the US interferes in far too many regions and situations than we should. But, the far Pacific is an area of top strategic importance, period, and unless things change dramatically we’re going to lose that war very shortly. Don’t kid yourselves, we’re at war, there just aren’t too many casualties yet. The US and the West can lose their security and standard of living without a shot being fired).
In a real world how to fix the trade deficit? Gold and eliminating fractional reserve lending? Perhaps that’s the ideal solution but this is not an ideal world.
Tariffs are the only plausible solution I know of. That’s the bottom line, even if you limit yourself to looking at geopolitical considerations alone.
Greenspan is entirely correct here. I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop. The tariffs on steel, aluminum, and chips are particularly insane, and will crush American manufacturers. The tariffs will also lead to decreases in the standard of living, as well. They always do.
Always predictions that are consistently wrong. President Trump’s tariffs will, as usual, do the exact opposite and make American manufacturers more profitable. That’s the reason for making our tariffs in-line with their tariffs, and it absolutely will work just as planned.
If Trump had put a tariff on manufacturing outputs, rather than manufacturing inputs, that might have happened.
Greenspan, the master of monetary insanity says Trump’s tariff policy is insane.
Greenspan took the lending standard to ZERO to facilitate a record housing bubble, to replace his crashed NASDAQ bubble. The country is still suffering from his monetary and non regulatory insanity.
“There are victors and there are losers in a tariff fight, but that doesn’t say that a more important issue is both are losing, it’s just the winner loses less.”
Some 60,000 U.S. factories have closed, causing the loss of countless good paying American jobs and hollowing out communities across the country.
There is a lose lose in that as well, as people can’t afford much of the cheaper goods from China, when they no longer have the income to pay for them. The Chinese in turn then lose some of the jobs they have gained.
“When Democrats and Republicans both want the same thing, it’s nearly always worth taking the opposite side.”
There are two problems with this statement – (1) it’s not “nearly always”, it’s ALWAYS; and (2) Trump is NOT a Republican. He’s an Independent who had to run as an R. It is obvious that the establishment R’s have been trying to undermine Trump as much as the establishment Dems, which, unlike the R’s, is all of them.
No matter what you call Trump, or how little credit you want to give him, the fact is he is the only presidential candidate that stood up to the establishment hacks who are responsible for the mess we are in, and based on the way the establishment (which includes the press and talking heads) goes after any anti-establishment person, it’s unlikely anyone will have the balls to run for President anytime soon.
Greenspan deserves ZERO credibility.
Someday people will learn the difference between words and actions. Saying someone is standing up to establishment hacks is easy, but Trump is either finding it extraordinarily difficult to do so or he’s not trying. Surrounding oneself with the likes of Mnuchin, Pompeo, Cohn, and Rudy 911iani isn’t merely failure to drain the swamp, it’s actually adding to it.
The first two years are nearly in the books and so far it’s resembled a WWE match where Trump gets to play heel. The media gets constant new material to feed the news cycle and everybody gets to pretend there’s a huge chasm between the parties. We can all debate abortion and gender pronouns while the small, meaningless stuff like banking and war are supported by the uniparty.
Whatever you do, just make sure you get out there and vote, because it totally matters! Greenspan would approve this message, since he got to wield tremendous power for two decades without ever having to worry about the dumb American electorate.
The first BUBBLE (dot com) creator!
He should keep his mouth SHUT!
Meanwhile, tariffs aren’t even working to lower the trade deficit, it’s going to be a record high this year. I’m guessing half the problem is that this guy is such an ass clown that many people refuse to buy American anymore, including Americans.
Greenspan says it’s insane? Lol. Now we know for certain Trump is doing the right thing.
Not one nation has stepped forward to take the “monstrous advantage in jobs and wealth creation” unilateral free trade will provide. Funny, I wonder why?
Generally, the extreme of one bad idea (high tariffs) is an equally bad idea (unilateral free trade). I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The free solar panels and cheap steel will not keep coming. Once a country’s capacity to produce these goods or find alternate supply sources is diminished or gone, prices will go up. That’s how monopolies and cartels work to undercut competition and consolidate pricing power. That is one price of unilateral “free” trade. It is why domestic monopolies are generally broken up or heavily regulated. Also, countries may want to retain some form of domestic production capacity in case of supply disruptions, or even sanctions by a needed supplier. I’m sure there are other reasons, some of which may even be reasonable.
Perhaps Trump’s tariffs are absurd as applied, but the failure of even one nation to enact unilateral free trade tells me the net benefits, if any at all, are certainly not monstrous.
Off hand, Hong Kong and Singapore are not known for high tariffs.
Hong Kong once did quite a lot of manufacturing, too. No longer. Which explains why it has fallen in to the same pit of poverty some say the US is falling in to by also losing those “good manufacturing jobs”.
Oh. Wait. Somethings wrong with what I just wrote.
That is the theory I wish there would be evidence to support either way. Does eliminating tariffs help the country or is it really detrimental ?? The textbooks say it will strengthen the countries economy that eliminates trade barriers. In theory there is no difference between practice and theory but in practice there is.
The Asian “tigers” and Latin America were in a very similar economic position, with Asia indeed poorer, post WW2. Latin America specifically followed a policy hailed as “import substitution.” High tariffs on foreign goods, and subsidies to local producers who would replace them. While the Asian countries chose a much more laissez-faire approach. So now you have Argentina (the superstar of the Latins), vs Taiwan… And Brazil vs South Korea. etc., etc… And Venezuela vs pretty much anything including Bikini.
Also, in economics there is no difference between theory and “practice.” As economics is no more an empirical discipline than mathematics is. Hence no amount pf practice can ever disprove 2+2=4. If economics is wrong, it’s because the theory is wrong.
The Asian Tiger approach can best be described as mercantilism (certainly not laissez-faire) in which they exported to the huge American market while protecting and subsidizing key domestic industries. The protection sometimes took the form of tariffs, but was usually in the form of non-tariff barriers. That the Asian Tiger approach fared better than Latin America’s, does not imply they embraced truly free trade. Venezuela is its own unique self-imposed economic hell.
The Asians imposed very little in the way of import restrictions. If anything, they went out of their way to encourage foreign equipment, and even foreign partners, in domestic entreprise. The reason they did become so competitive, is specifically because they had no restrictions on people bringing in the latest and greatest in European, Japanese and even American equipment. Along with “H1Bs” with experience in operating it, even….
And as for “non-tariff barriers”, what the heck even is that, other than yet another childish layer of progressive, government apologist Newspeak? Talk about undefined, undefinable, mindless babble of the most economically illiterate kind.
Being destitute poor is a non-tariff barrier wrt the more expensive goods wealthier (back then) Westerners preferred. So yes, post war Taiwan did effectively have some “trade barriers” working against consumption of finned Cadillacs, Microwave ovens and full price American movie tickets. While American industry weren’t exactly falling over themselves trying to dominate the primitive $1 rice cooker market…
Once the Asians were a bit less destitute, that other common Asian “non-tariff barrier”: Saving a few of the bucks they made, rather than spending it all, then going into debt to spend even more; did, and still does, come into play. None of which has anything to do with arbitrary tariffs. Nor other competition distortion and cost increasing interference.
You’re correct, something is wrong with what you wrote.
Hong Kong and Singapore are (or were) city-states. Are you really comparing them to nations of any significant size? Certainly, very small countries can choose to specialize in very specific economic areas since their security and independence depend on the goodwill of others anyway. Besides, Hong Kong, as part of China, now has an enormous manufacturing base and can generate wealth leveraging that base.
Did I say the US has fallen in to a pit of poverty by losing those “good manufacturing jobs”? No. Freer trade is always better and anyone suggesting limits should have the onus of explaining why those limits are necessary.
In a benign world unilateral free trade may even be possible. We do not live in a benign world. That’s why you get oil embargoes and threats over rare earth elements, for example. It’s why many nations pursue energy and food security. Politicians definitely abuse these concerns to protect various interest groups, but that does not make the underlying concern any less real.
It’s foolish to think other nations will not pursue their interests (many of which are not economic) at the expense of the US and that trade policy will play a role in this.
HK and Sing (and Macao – thank you,@Realist ) are city states. And, as such, it’s easier to see that, in the modern world, they must have very strong ties to the outside world. Low tariffs actualize such ties. And, compared to the US (one of the world’s big four countries), Switzerland’s size makes it easy to see they also require tight integration with the world to be as rich as they are.
That such is not as obvious on first glance with the US is, indeed, because the US is a gigantic free trade zone. That’s spent the last century expanding that free trade zone to the betterment of the people in that whole, enlarged, zone.
Yes, both historically, and in current practice, the US has had out-sized connections with the rest of the world. People point out the US adapted a mercantilist attitude in the 1800’s. As opposed to who? Observe that the US changed, but it’s direct, equivalent competitors (Latin America) did not. They stayed in the JV league while the US went on to create (with others), the varsity. The rest, as they say, is history.
I agree with much of what you say and suspect we are closer on free trade issues than many people. For example, in Singapore, duties are high on cars and alcohol. Those are social policy choices given Singapore’s unique circumstances. Every country will make similar choices as they see fit and it will impact trade policy. Undoubtedly, politicians use (abuse?) social and trade policy to impose trade barriers and protect certain groups at the expense of consumers generally, farmers being the most prominent group almost everywhere.
I’m open to the argument that political abuse is so rampant the benefits of unfettered free trade may exceed the mess we have now and would be worth pursuing. Reasonable minds can certainly differ on that. I just don’t believe it’s as easy as opening everything up and the wealth will roll in. I think there are downside risks that need to be considered in terms of long-term security, though those risks are usually overblown for political purposes.
Reasonable people can conclude Trump’s trade policy is insane and still not agree with unfettered free trade. Thanks for expounding on your views.
“Oh. Wait. Somethings wrong with what I just wrote.”
yes you did,
from the farm to the cities to work in manufacturing.
than you teach children that manufacturing is not good study for; phd, doctors… flipping houses, and jobbing stock.
Quoting Greenspan is ridiculous.
You should amend that a bit. Quoting Greenspan in his role as Fed Chair was indeed ridiculous. Quoting his total aversion to admitting any role in the financial crisis is also folly. He did more damage to the country than perhaps any other individual.
However, when he has no skin in the game, he can be insightful. He’s no dummy and can be worth listening to, as long as you can resist the urge to scrub yourself with lava soap at the mere sight of his ghoulish visage.
GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM
by Alan Greenspan 1966
Thanks to the Realist for sensible comments.
“Yes please let the Chinese win”
Excellent point hmk. Let them “win” by giving us free solar panels, cheap steel for our manufacturers to build products with, etc etc etc.
Standards of living rise when goods are cheaper. I am all in favor of the Chinese producing goods at a loss for the benefit of US consumers and manufacturers.
I am 100% in favor of letting them “win”. Yes, let them “win”.
That is not what I meant. I don’t have any opposition to foreign govts subsidizing industries resulting in cheaper goods for us. I oppose the tariffs Trump placed on Canadian lumber for eg it resulted in higher construction costs. The theory is we take advantage of the foreign govt subsidies and as a result our industrial capacity will shift to more efficient production. This is a painful transition as it will cost some jobs but hopefully new jobs and industry will be created that provide more value. The country subsidizing industries actually is hurt by this in the long run. However, what the Chinese are doing to harm competition is predatory. There are innumerable examples of how they extort US companies and impede their ability to compete in China. There are no legal remedies for blatant illegal act perpretrated by the Chinese agains US companies. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to get a more level playing with them. As I said this should have been addressed a long time ago. There may be more “diplomatic ” ways to address this instead of a tariff/trade war but maybe not. As the saying goes “if you want peace prepare for war”. It seems that its become a knee jerk reaction that anything Trump does is wrong as Realist keeps crying about, It is Hate speech. Come on I am getting tried of this liberal leftist crap. If Trump walked on water across the Potomac, Realist and his ilk would claim Trump can’t swim. I know he is an annoying SOB but many of his policy ideas are long overdue and grounded on solid points
No policy idea that involves increasing government involvement, from a level already an order of magnitude or more too big, are even remotely grounded on solid points.
America is “losing” to communist China because America has now gotten soooo over governed, by a combination of Federal, State and local thugs, as well as the private sector governments of ambulance chasers, activist judges, money printers and privileged banksters, that even a bloody communist country like China is a, de facto, freer and less costly place to do business than here.
That’s the reason China prosper, while “we” do not. May the freest country win… Adding even more burdens to US actors, is just adding to the insult. And will hence add to the self inflicted injury.
“However, what the Chinese are doing to harm competition is predatory.”
you are saying chinese are cheating.
yes they do — they cheating themselves.
what about americans are they cheating?
of course they do.
what is solution –gold standard where no one can cheat.
It would help lots if the President would explain in more detail exactly what he hopes to gain with his tariffs. I’m still a little in the dark about what Trump expects China to give him in terms of better trade deals.
He hopes to appear to be doing something to improve American living standards in flyover country. Tariffs don’t really work, but that’s not the point. He can’t follow through on campaign promises (lock her up, build the wall, end the wars, etc) nor can he take on the Fed ponzi or Wall St, so this is an alternative. He has to do something besides golf at Mar-a-Lago and send tweets, right?
The last prez also spent lots of time golfing and pretending to help people, but he was good at schmoozing with other leaders, which gave him a veneer of perceived leadership. This guy looks miserable unless he’s dealing with Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Yes please let the Chinese win. The trade screw job and IP theft has been going on way to long. The greedy capitalists here will sell our future to these ruthless bastards. No worries about what comes later i.e. their rise to become the worlds dominant military power. Well at least we got cheap stuff for a while. Better to take the medicine of higher prices now with the hopes that they will come to their senses and engage in more equitable trade. If not and then you morons will be the subjects of a regime that has murdered 50 million of their own citizens. I don’t know how much simpler this could be. You people have TDS and just because he is trying to address this issue, which is way overdue, he is an idiot right?? I would argue its the other way around.
There’s nothing “equitable” about overcharging people for stuff they could get cheaper elsewhere.
If Trump wants “America” to “beat China,” he should stop imposing unnecessary costs on US producers. End income taxes; end sales taxes; end building restrictions driving up rent for US companies and employees; end the Fed and it’s persistent wealth transfers to banksters and other deadweights and away from productive enterprise; end any and all reason why productive companies need to waste money protecting and insuring themselves against legal shakedowns; end any regulation that costs a buck or more to comply with; end wars which suck up resources that could otherwise be productively employed; etc., etc.
You don’t beat a competitor by overcharging, and making life harder, for your own team.
how are they winning?
by giving you free goodies for a pieces of green paper.
their debt level are much higher than american
their gdp per capita is much lover?
what about chinese enviroment?
are you calling that win?
I am going to be blunt – K, if you think the EU is tariff-free, you are full of shit. Knock off the stupidity
So the French charge a tariff when a German car is sold in France? Is that what you mean, Mish? How much is that tariff?
“but Trump is no brilliant deal maker or businessman.”
The problem is everyone else but him knows this and he happens to be the President.
Precisely!
No way, the Trump following is a cult. Dear leader is so physically and mentally perfect he never even needs to take a dump.
Agreed-Trump following is a cult. But it does not follow that they think he is a great businessman. It is just that people are so fed up with the existing career politicians that they are willing to choose anyone who they believe is non-establishment, warts and all. I cannot blame them since they can only choose from what is on offer (Trump/Bush/Hillary etc.). I am no fan of Trump but given the bunch that was on offer in 2016, it is likely I would have held my nose and picked Trump.
Unlike the democrat sycophants
At least my pork and beans are getting cheaper.
I guess this means Greenspan is opposed to Brexit (separation of the UK from the EU), since that will inevitably mean imposing tariffs on trade between the UK and continental Europe that is currently tariff-free?