Remnant regular and Cato Institute trade expert Scott Lincicome returns to the show for his periodic trade update, and to discuss whether the “national conservatism” assessment of trade is correct.

Subscribe to The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 12 comments.

  1. JosePluma Thatcher

    Is this the Remnant Podcast?

    Has Scott Lincicome the building? Is it a building?

    • #1
    • July 29, 2019, at 3:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Joe D. Lincoln

    If you believe that it might be possible to use tariffs to try to get better trade agreements that does not mean that you believe that some bureaucrats in Washington can run our lives for us better than we can run them ourselves.

    It’s interesting to hear that we as a nation are already fairly protectionist though.

    Personally, I would rather just focus on intellectual property theft and not worry about the rest of it. … Although, I think we’d be better off if we could chase a lot of production out of China and into countries that seem to have a better view of freedom and are less likely to be adversarial.

    On the other hand, I have been kind of skeptical about what is actually going on with Chinese intellectual property theft. It seems that some pro-Chinese types deny it is even a thing. How much of a thing is it? Are other countries doing similar things? (Are we, the USA?) If it is a thing and is really unique to China, I don’t mind if we are rather heavy handed about it. If it’s a bunch of bull, I’d like to hear from some sources that I think I can trust that it is a bunch of bull – and to spell out why it is a bunch of bull. Right now, I believe the Chinese are guilty of IP theft, but I don’t know to what extent I believe it. I also don’t know if I believe that other countries are not doing it as well, and finally I wonder if the US government demands some IP itself, even if it does not give it to industry to or let industry use it – other than maybe industries in the defense field.

    • #2
    • July 30, 2019, at 8:20 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. JesseMcVay Listener

    You’ve expressed concern that formerly conventional conservatives have abandoned conventional conservative economic and trade policy in favor of a more populist flavored outlook. It’s one thing to have that conversation with someone like Scott Lincicome who agrees with you. I’d be interested to listen to a conversation with someone who disagrees. Tucker Carlson maybe? I’ve seen him on Dave Rubin’s podcast so apparently he’s not such a high dollar commodity that he shuns the medium. Any chance of that?

     

    • #3
    • July 30, 2019, at 11:49 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. JesseMcVay Listener

    The complaint that tariffs just pass the costs on to the consumer may be true, but rings a little hollow. If we concede that we’re never going to eliminate all vestiges of the welfare state, isn’t it better to “tax” the consumer via tariffs and bring some outsourced jobs home, than to raise conventional taxes and help those losing a job by putting them on the dole? Seems less corrosive to accept the help in the form of a job than in the form of a government check.

    • #4
    • July 30, 2019, at 11:57 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Joseph Eagar Member

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):

    The complaint that tariffs just pass the costs on to the consumer may be true, but rings a little hollow. If we concede that we’re never going to eliminate all vestiges of the welfare state, isn’t it better to “tax” the consumer via tariffs and bring some outsourced jobs home, than to raise conventional taxes and help those losing a job by putting them on the dole? Seems less corrosive to accept the help in the form of a job than in the form of a government check.

    What’s funny is that this is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. His administration pursued a trade war with Japan that ultimately ended with Japanese car makers building factories in the U.S. But for some reason Reagan is remembered as the apotheosis of free trade conservatism.

    • #5
    • July 30, 2019, at 12:39 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. SParker Member

    JesseMcVay (View Comment):
    isn’t it better to “tax” the consumer via tariffs and bring some outsourced jobs home, than to raise conventional taxes and help those losing a job by putting them on the dole?

    If all taxes are equally harmful and the only solution to being out of work you can think of is going on the dole, funded by raised taxes, well, yes.

    Tariffs invite even more political corruption than we currently enjoy and provide an incentive to complacency in business, at least after our representatives have been greased. Government can and should provide the means to get those without the means over the unemployment hump (retraining, moving, eating regularly). There’s an equity case for that for formerly protected industries as well as a humanitarian one. But, if you believe the employment figures for the last half-century, in its own creaky way our government has already been doing this. <wild assertion alert> It could probably do a much better job of it and lower taxes in the process.

     

    • #6
    • July 30, 2019, at 7:53 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. LibertyDefender Member

    I was tempted to turn it off when Jonah explained that Mount Rushmore is in North Dakota.

    I did turn it off shortly thereafter, when it appeared that I was in for another bout of CATO whining about Trump’s tariffs, likely without any recognition of the fact that some trade partners – like China – need to be confronted, and Trump’s hard line aggressive trade negotiations are having an impact.

    • #7
    • July 31, 2019, at 4:54 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. LibertyDefender Member

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    Personally, I would rather just focus on intellectual property theft and not worry about the rest of it. … 

    On the other hand, I have been kind of skeptical about what is actually going on with Chinese intellectual property theft. It seems that some pro-Chinese types deny it is even a thing. How much of a thing is it? Are other countries doing similar things? (Are we, the USA?) If it is a thing and is really unique to China, I don’t mind if we are rather heavy handed about it. If it’s a bunch of bull, I’d like to hear from some sources that I think I can trust that it is a bunch of bull – and to spell out why it is a bunch of bull. Right now, I believe the Chinese are guilty of IP theft, but I don’t know to what extent I believe it. I also don’t know if I believe that other countries are not doing it as well, and finally I wonder if the US government demands some IP itself, even if it does not give it to industry to or let industry use it – other than maybe industries in the defense field.

    Chinese theft of IP is real, it is huge, and it is insidious. It needs to end.

    Every company that wishes to do business in China must form a Joint Venture that is 51% Chinese-owned. China then routinely demands that the JV disclose to the Chinese bureaucracy all technology of its parent, under criminal penalty for non-compliance. China explains that it’s not theft, given that the JV is majority Chinese, and China is communist, so the JV has no private property rights.

    It is real, it is insidious, and it needs to end.

    • #8
    • July 31, 2019, at 5:06 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. kedavis Member

    But you’ve just explained why, by law, it is actually not theft.

    • #9
    • July 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. LibertyDefender Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But you’ve just explained why, by law, it is actually not theft.

    You say that as if you approve of it.

    It’s coercion, which is a form of theft.

    It’s wrong. It’s huge. It needs to end.

    • #10
    • July 31, 2019, at 1:01 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Joseph Eagar Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But you’ve just explained why, by law, it is actually not theft.

    So, uh. . . sarcasm. . .?

    • #11
    • July 31, 2019, at 1:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. kedavis Member

    Not that it’s right. But it’s apparently legal. So that would seem to indicate a change of law is needed. Or better yet, American companies need to stop forming “joint ventures” with the Chinese Government. errr, Chinese Businesses. Well, same thing, really.

    • #12
    • July 31, 2019, at 3:38 PM PDT
    • 1 like