Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Anti-Business Businessman
We’ve been instructed not to take our new president literally, but instead seriously (in the felicitous phrasing of Salena Zito). As I write, there are hints that the inaugural address will focus on the theme of “America First.” President-elect Trump may or may not be familiar with the historical taint of that phrase, but in any case the meaning he attaches to it has been clear enough.
Throughout his career, Mr. Trump has been consistent on two issues: trade and admiration for strong men. He departs from the consensus about American leadership in the post-World War II era. Rather than seeing US security guarantees and promotion of trade as providing the means through which the world (and the US) has seen unprecedented growth, peace, and prosperity, he thinks we’ve been chumps.
“America First” is a declaration of No More Mr. Nice Guy. This is the link between his views on NATO and trade. In the former case, he appears to think that the NATO alliance is a favor we do for an ungrateful Europe. While it would be a very positive development if every NATO member were to spend the agreed-upon two percent of GDP on defense, there is reason to doubt that Trump’s comments are simply veiled threats to achieve that. Is it pure coincidence that while denigrating NATO, Trump has shown excessive friendliness to Putin, whose chief goal (just ask Gen. Mattis) is undermining the alliance?
Trump has offered differing explanations for his tweets about NATO being “obsolete.” He has mentioned defense spending. He has also cited failure to cooperate on terror. But Article V has only ever been invoked for Europe to help America. Many NATO countries contributed troops and other support to the war in Afghanistan, including the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Norway, and The Netherlands, among others.
Unlike his views on immigration, abortion, single-payer, ISIS, and countless other topics, Trump has been consistent on trade since the 1980s. In 1987, he bought a full-page ad in the New York Times denouncing trade with Japan. He seems genuinely to believe that trade impoverishes us, which is odd for a businessman, because trade is really just another word for business.
It is true that our economy has seen very limited growth over the course of the past decade or so, but to finger NAFTA and other trade deals as the culprit, instead of, say, overregulation or high taxes, is perverse. Trump cites the trade deficit figures with China and others to prove that we are “losing” in a zero-sum competition and that jobs are being “outsourced” due to stupid leadership by politicians. These are Democratic talking points. Or were.
Manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation above all. Also, commerce (another word for trade), unlike war, has winners on both sides of the transaction, not winners and losers. The US economy boomed during the 1980s and 1990s despite large trade deficits. Those who claim that the US is running a trade deficit in goods due to unfair trade practices of trading partners never seem to make the case that our trade surplus in services (large and growing) is due to our own unfair practices.
Trump has made a number of fine cabinet appointments, but the “trade triumvirate” of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and the head of a new entity called the National Trade Council, Peter Navarro, are quite worrying advocates of so-called “nationalist” economics. Like Mr. Trump, they see trade as a form of warfare. It isn’t. But trade wars can lead to real wars, thus the saying “If goods don’t cross borders, armies do.”
The possible ironies here are voluminous. 1) The people who will suffer from trade protectionism are the poor and working classes who will pay higher prices for goods, and see their jobs lost due to higher prices of imports (half of imports are used in American manufacturing, some of which go to exports). 2) China is benefitting even now from other nations’ fear of US retrenchment on trade. Instead of American-led free trade agreements, China is lining up Pacific nations for a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in which Beijing calls the tune. 3) The US is the world’s largest trading nation. Protectionism is a punch in our own eye. To “punish” China or anyone else for selling us too many products, Mr. Trump can impose higher prices only on Americans.
The president has a great deal of independent power on trade matters. Here is something for Republicans in Congress to mull: If President Trump, the great businessman, ignites a trade war and tanks the economy, voters will draw the lesson “Those free-market Republicans have done it again. Capitalism equals depression.”
Published in Politics
We’re “advised” instead of “instructed,” but if we don’t heed the “advice” the consequence is “failing the class.”
Aren’t classes taught by instructors?
Wow. Yes. No. Maybe. Is mona the only one who’s allowed to mix metaphors? I guess I was objecting to the word “instructed” and then saw that maybe the best way to hammer the point home was to revert to her own mindset as the student. Often instructors advise their student, to study, or to perhaps change their attitudes to better succeed in their class. So I guess it was in this sense that I used the threat of failing the class. It doesn’t much matter. I realized she actually dropped the class a while ago and is just heckling.
I’ve heard multiple Trump speeches in which he says, in essence: “I’m not blaming the Chinese, I’m wishing our negotiators are as smart.”
Front Seat Cat, I wish we had a “duh” button. No offense meant to you! I liked reading your comment but can’t add anything.
Mrs. Charen, we get it. Mr. Trump is an idiot and those of us, like me, who voted for him, are morons. Now, can you please allow the man to enter office and implement something before the sky falls? Take a breath.
Could you speak plainly? I don’t understand your innuendo.
LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
You think this takes care to speak plainly? You are sitting on innuendo.
Not sure what you mean by “sitting on innuendo”.
The link I provided explains what is commonly understood by “America First” which Damocles seemed to be unfamiliar with.
That’s not what I’m hearing from Trump. I hear him saying that Mexico and China have been smarter negotiators than us in our trade deals. The proof is in the pudding–they’ve been getting richer while we’ve been getting poorer. We should both be getting richer. Trump understands that it’s not zero sum — that’s why he’s so confident he can do better. Because he knows that the deals were drawn up by doofuses who don’t know how to make bigger pies. Our doofuses have gotten us into deals that not only didn’t grow the pie, but gave more of it to the other side. We need win-win deals, not win-lose. Trump understands this in spades. It’s Business 101.
Look, some Americans don’t accept the notion that words used with their clear meaning can be said to be tainted because someone, somewhere, at sometime used those same words and were, in fact, engaged in activities disparage by some.
The link refers to ‘America First Committee’. Mona implies that the use of ‘America First’ is tainted. She, being of the elite, thinks that is the last word. Are you certain what you linked to is the ‘commonly understood’ interpretation of Donald Trump supporters and I might add even those who don’t support him. This is exactly the technique used by the Left to plant inappropriate labels.
It’s a bit like going Godwin, but more passive-aggressive than hysterical.
What color is the sky on your planet where Mexico is getting richer while the US is getting poorer?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States,+Mexico+GDP+per+capita+1994+to+2017
Duh, of course I’m familiar with the phrase. The innuendo I don’t understand is
“he” refers to Trump, but what is this clear meaning? You can guess, but I would like to hear that part clarified.
Right. And all of those rube Trump supporters are secretly well-versed in all manner of arcane US history speaking in code to each other.
Or: Trump is fully aware of the historical taint, being a secret student of history in his spare time when he’s not building buildings or tweeting at Rosie O’Donnell, while his supporters aren’t. The words themselves hold their own magic hypnotic power that inevitably will usher in a age of fascism in America.
This is a bit like W’s critics who called him an idiot yet thought he was running devious schemes against the American people at the same time. That’s why they had to make Cheney the puppet master. Do we have a puppet master for Trump?