Yves here. I feel as if I am overdue in opining on the Trump win, but there is a tsunami of commentary on it and I aspire to writing something that isn’t more or less a rehash of widely held views. So please be patient.
In the meantime, the post below is a useful high level treatment on Trump’s plans to increase and extend the scope of tariffs and how that is likely to affect the US and its trade partners.
Oddly, few commentators mention is that one reason Trump likes tariffs is that Presidents can impose them without Congressional approval….provided they can be characterized as addressing a threat to national security. Will anyone see fit to challenge Trump’s authority if he starts imposing them on a widespread basis?
However, the author also stresses that higher tariffs have become a bipartisan affair, and that Harris was likely to have increased them too. So Trump may simply wind up being louder and faster about adding to them than Team Dem might have been.
Note this piece does not address another looming economic issue, that the Biden Administration ran very large budget deficits, and if Trump wants to have a more balanced budget as he professes, he will need to cut spending, which will slow the economy and also reduce imports from trade partners in addition to the impact of tariffs. Mind you, Trump may well follow Reagan, by cutting tax revenues without then reducing spending as loudly promised.
Mind you, we don’t think deficit spending is a bad thing if done with an understanding of real economy constraints and how Federal initiatives can boost economic capacity, making the spending pay for itself by increasing output. None other than the diehard neoliberal Larry Summers found that infrastructure spending would generate as much as $3 in GDP growth for every dollar spent. Given the shoddy state of US infrastructure (including our way behind global standards for broadband), there would seem to plenty to do if one were so inclined.
By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University. Originally published at The Conversation
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election – and his threat to impose tariffs on all imports to the United States – highlights an important problem for the global economy.
The US is a technological powerhouse, spending more than any other country on research and development and winning more Nobel prizes in the last five years than every other country combined. Its inventions and economic successes are the envy of the globe. But the rest of the world needs to do everything in its power to avoid being too dependent on it.
And this situation would not have been much different had Harris won.
The “America first” approach of Donald Trump has actually been a bipartisan policy. At least since previous president Barack Obama’s policy of energy independence, the US has been on a mostly inward-looking quest of maintaining technological supremacy while ending the offshoring of industrial jobs.
One of the major choices Trump made in his first term was to accept higher prices for US consumers in order to protect national producers by slapping high tariffs on almost every trading partner.
For instance, Trump’s 2018 tariffs on washing machines from all over the world mean US consumers have been paying 12% more for these products.
President Joe Biden – in certainly a more polite way – then increased some of the Trump tariffs: up to 100% on electric vehicles, 50% on solar cells and 25% on batteries from China.
At a time of climate emergency, this was a clear choice to slow down the energy transition in order to protect US manufacturing.
While Biden signed a truce with Europe on tariffs, it started a perhaps even more damaging battle by launching a subsidy race.
The US Inflation Reduction Act for instance contains US$369 billion (£286 billion) of subsidies in areas such as electric vehicles or renewable energy. And the Chips Act committed US$52 billion to subsidise the production of semiconductors and computer chips.
China, Europe and the Rest of the World
This US industrial policy might have been inward-looking, but it has clear consequences for the rest of the world. China, after decades of mostly export-based growth, must now deal with massive problems of industrial overcapacity.
The country is now trying to encourage more domestic consumption and to diversify its trading partners.
Europe, despite a very tight budget constraint, spends a lot of money in the subsidy race. Germany, a country facing sluggish growth and big doubts on its industrial model, is committed to matching US subsidies, offering for instance €900 million (£750 million) to Swedish battery makers Northvolt to continue producing in the country.
All those subsidies are hurting the world economy and could have easily financed urgent needs such as the electrification of the entire African continent with solar panels and batteries. Meanwhile, China has replaced the US and Europe as the largest investor in Africa, following its own interest for natural resources.
The incoming Trump mandate might be a chance to fix ideas.
One might, for instance, argue that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the thousands of deaths and the energy crisis that followed, could have been avoided had the Biden administration been clearer to Russian president Vladimir Putin about the consequences of an invasion, and provided modern weapons to Kyiv before the war.
But the blame is mostly on Europe. Credit where it’s due, the strategic problem of becoming too dependent on Russian gas is something Trump had clearly warned Germany about during his first mandate.
There is a clear path forward: Europe could help China fix its overcapacity problems by negotiating an end to its own tariff war on Chinese technology such as solar panels and electric cars.
In exchange, Europe would regain some sovereignty by producing more of its own clean energy instead of importing record amounts of liquid gas from the US. It could also learn a few things from producing with Chinese companies, and China could use its immense leverage on Russia to end the invasion of Ukraine.
The European Union could also work harder on what it does best: signing trade deals, and using them as a way to reduce carbon emissions around the world.
This is not only about Europe and China. After decades of continuous improvement on all major dimensions of human life, the world is moving backwards.
The number of people facing hunger is increasing, taking us back to the levels of 2008-9. War is raging in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, and now Lebanon. The world had not seen as many civilian casualties since 2010.
>
The world is alone, and America will not come to save it.
We do not know what will happen to the US. Maybe the return of Trump will mostly be a continuation of the last ten years. Maybe prohibitive tariffs or destroying the institutions that made the US such an economic powerhouse will make the US economy less relevant. But this is something Americans have chosen, and something the rest of the world simply has to live with.
In the meantime, the only thing the world can do is learn how to better work together, without becoming too dependent on each other.
60 comments
Comments are closed.
Houthi and Hamas post-election announcements reflect lowering of tensions in the Middle East. That will have beneficial effects throughout the region and should reduce perceived risks in various markets. Such incremental steps would help stabilize politics and economics impacts to allow for somewhat proactive instead of reactive discussions and eventual policies.
Yeah, Putin would have caved on Ukraine if only Biden had been tougher and installed those missiles pointed at Moscow early on. Plus a huge NATO-trained military.
Kind of impeaches the smarts of the author.
And the only option offered is to ‘learn to work together better, without becoming too dependent on each other.’ How’s that going to happen, again? Trump and the Establishment being all in with the US as the “indispensable nation,” where a plurality of the economic actors are post-national hypercorporations pursuing selfish interests?
Hoping I’m wrong.
Yes, JT! The author of the article may understand ‘Economics’ but lacks perspective on Geopolitics. He does not understand the power of Russia to end all economics on the planet with it’s Dead Hand nuclear policy.
The author also does not recognize the dementia in both Biden and US diplomacy.
Thanks again, for keeping us all focused on what matters ;).
Good points. The author lacks historical perspective as well, and appears to have digested the unified narrative of the state dept. and the mass media sycophants. A couple of centuries of Russo-phobia is deeply embedded in the ‘western’ mindset. The implicit assumption is that the US has the right to dominate the world and dictate events on Russia’s border.
These arm-chair “tough guys” are the worst. He could always go join the Avoz boys and shoot Ukrainian deserters if we wants to put his money where his keyboard is
Also, the author takes a cavalier attitude to “getting tough” with Russia: He is obviously ignorant of the recklessness of provoking a country with a history of dealing with invasions and meddling from ‘the west’. and one that has advanced hyper-sonic missile systems and nuclear weapons. Is the author lamenting the fact that the Biden regime did not attack Russia directly?
I almost snorted when he said the US leads in R&D as if that means anything given how big military R&D is and how useless its been on the battlefield.
US 806 billion, China 667 billion*, but if one PPP adjusts these values, China leads. So either the author does not understand economics or chooses not to (because his job depends on it? But then he is a propagandist, and everything claimed is suspect).
And then claims ChatGPT means the world envies us (as opposed to EVs). Also claims the warp speed (by skipping safety tests) of the covid vax is evidence of US superiority – China and Russia came up with vaccines just as fast and without as many side effects (because they didn’t use the problematic RNA platform or focus on the spike protein solely).
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20246/table/RD-5
Instead of lamenting how Biden failed to “tough talk” Putin and the failure to provide more advanced weapons to NATO, the author could’ve removed the offensive missile from the Russian border.
JTMcPhee
had the same misgivings myself.
In one of his links he points to an article he wrote where he says:
“In the hope of putting pressure on European countries supporting Ukraine, Russia decided to cut almost all of its exports of gas to the west. Before the war, Russia had provided about 40% of Europe’s gas. ”
I told you Russia blew up Nord Stream2! This boy seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality.
Funny that people keep giving Trump credit for the thing where he was obviously wrong. It turned out Russia was, or in fact still is, most dependable partner imaginable, since all the sanctions were created by US/EU and yet Putin keeps pumping as much oil/gas to EU as it wants, going to great lengths to help EU politicians to keep faces and route around their own sanctions like the gas-for-rubles scheme.
I wonder how Trump will treat Europe now that EU forced itself to import large chunks of gas from US, I guess we will learn soon.
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Trump clearly warned Europe (Germany specifically) that cozying up to Russia for cheap energy was a bad idea. This was years before the Ukraine invasion.
The sanctions imposed on Russia were meant to cripple the country, but by being such a critical supplier of gas the EU had no teeth to hold the sanctions.
It was not up to Russia not to sell to the EU, it was up to the EU to have the strength not to buy it.
And why exactly it was supposed to be bad idea to get cheap gas from Russia? The standard response was that Russia would use that dependency to extract political concession by threatening to cut the flow when the right crisis arises. Except they never did, not even when EU is trying to “strategically defeat” Russia, so the premise was wrong and with it the whole advice. In fact it was EU/USA who tried to weaponize the exact same dependency against Russia, but it backfired. So now EU is dependent on US, which is the one who has habit of using trade relations to squeeze its friends, see the ASML saga.
This!
The neo-cons like John Bolton were always against Germany importing gas from Russia.
The problem has been that the EU “marketified” gas pricing regulation in the 00s promising cheap energy. Which meant a boom in gas infrastructure. Since 2021 this cheap gas has proven to be anything but cheap. It is extremely expensive. A noose around our neck.
Europe has also seen doubling of prices for commodities like nickel. All caused by 100% dependence on Russia.
To some extent Russia has imperialised European economies.
The rise in the nickel price is due to the increasing number of EV vehicles and supply chain issues. The largest nickel producers are Australia and Indonesia, with 20% of global supply each. I find it hard to believe that Russia with its 7% share of global supply would be able to double nickel prices, especially when European countries can easily buy it from other countries. And besides, Russian nickel is not even sanctioned by the EU, so there is no reason to blame Russia for European nickel price hikes.
Also, that “extremely expensive” gas after 2021 is sold by the US. Who is really putting a noose on Europe’s neck and imperialising European economies?
Stupid is as stupid thinks. Russian gas = strong German economy = more stable Western Europe; no Russian gas = weak German economy = early collapse of EU; Russsian gas delivered by Turkish and other intermediaries = more expensive Russian gas + capital costs of constructing LNG ports and developing distribution networks = Germany screwed = the underlying sense of all the arguments why Britain left the EU and why other countries should as well.
Pssst — I’d note that a few people banked, and continue to bank, a lot of wealth from the “costs” of adapting to US Gas… so, a natural lobby in support of Da Stupid…
Not to mention the effects of Disaster Capitalism on upward annd inward migration of wealth from the Ukraine Project. Hunter and The Big Guy, and Black Rock and Raytheon and Ursula, we mopes are looking at YOU! Not that you have a damn thing to fear, either by virtue of an early exit from the mortal coil, or penalties that can easily be negated by Friends In High Places.
Maybe it is actually impossible to get all us humans to pull on the same end of the rope, in the same direction, all at the same time…
So instead, Europe has to find the strength to buy gas at exorbitant cost from not-Russia? Hope they can manage… but you know what they say, “better cold than a commie!” I just made that up. May it warm you.
And a great example of the DoubleThink contradictions of the mass media. As the link shows, DT was against Germany buying cheap and reliable gas from Russia. He, despite the BS, increased sanctions on Russia, bombed Russian ally, Syria, tried to provoke a war with Iran (Russia ally), supported Israeli attacks on Syria, Iran etc. With “friends” like him, who needs enemies?
The mass media fooled most people, but like him or not, Vladimir Putin was not fooled.
“The US is a technological powerhouse, spending more than any other country on research and development and winning more Nobel prizes in the last five years than every other country combined. Its inventions and economic successes are the envy of the globe. But the rest of the world needs to do everything in its power to avoid being too dependent on it.”
— Renaud Foucart
An important claim but, I would argue, incorrect. The latest manufacturing productivity data was released today and America has experienced declining manufacturing productivity for twelve and three quarters now. The long term decline in American manufacturing productivity is unprecedented.
Also, America spends relatively less on research and development than most of the wealthiest nations. America for the last 24 years, as a share of GDP, has been spending less than half as much as China on research and development. The result is that Chinese institutions are now producing far more “high quality” science publications.
Think what it means that the Nature.com Index of high-quality science research publishing for the latest 12 months shows 4 of the top 5 publishing institutions are Chinese, 7 of the top 10 institutions are Chinese, and 11 of the top 15.
Harvard is at number 2. German institutions are at numbers 7 and 13. A French institution is number 10.
This is what stood out most to me too. Most economists in particular seem to be especially bad at understanding technology, I think partly because their whole worldview is predicated on believing “the map is the territory”.
His reference to Nobel prizes is a perfectly good example of that. Even if you want to base an argument from Nobel prizes, it’s more a proxy for the selectivity and resources of a few elite institutions, and a lagging indicator at that.
Meanwhile, among those of us that have worked in engineering (at least outside Silicon Valley) and seen some how the sausage is made, I don’t know many optimists.
The decline in American manufacturing productivity has lasted 12.75 years, from the beginning of 2011 through September 2024. This represents a major failure in research and development:
Investment as a percent of GDP, 2023
China ( 41.6)
United States ( 21.5)
Most economists are particularly bad when it comes to understanding how an economy actually works but they are really great at playing with hypothetical markets based on hypothetical/nonsensical/mystical assumptions and drawing really stupid conclusions about policy.
“Assume a can opener” comes to mind…
Also remember that the time gap between conducting research and winning a nobel prize has been going up since the 1950s. Most nobel prizes awarded today are for research conducted decades ago.
I think that you are correct. Industrial America has been hollowed out over the past generation in favour of financial engineering and America is now in decline. Maybe not at the top but for almost everybody else it is. When Foucart talks about how ‘Its inventions and economic successes are the envy of the globe’, he is talking about an earlier era. A time when America built huge ambitious engineering projects and was renowned for their competence. Countries are catching up fast and it is the Chinese who are now renowned for their engineering.
May be he is talking about the creepy AI thingy?– That called AI mustn’t be creepy it might just be a way of digesting big data in short time but badly understood and managed can turn out the terrors. The PMC guarantees bad management.
American manufacturing productivity stopped growing and began to slowly decline in 2011.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=m2mB
January 30, 2018
Manufacturing Productivity, * 1988-2024
* Output per hour of all persons
(Indexed to 1988)
It’s actually even worse if you entertain the “but automation” argument and look at Total Factor Productivity.
We’ve somehow managed to create an industrial base where even new investment doesn’t qualitatively improve anything.
NotThePilot:
“It’s actually even worse if you entertain the ‘but automation’ argument and look at Total Factor Productivity.
“We’ve somehow managed to create an industrial base where even new investment doesn’t qualitatively improve anything.”
Really important: Total Factor Productivity in manufacturing simply stopped increasing in 2008.
I was watching a YouTube channel, Project Farm about 3/8” ratchets. It is run by a very methodical fellow who tries to find the best value in products. I watched the video and was mildly perturbed. The best ratchet according to multiple tests and summing of categories was a Chinese manufacture ratchet at $20. It was tested against an American ratchet, one costing $150 and another $200. The Chinese ratchet bested all the American products handily. I work as a mechanic and have many American made tools, but I bought them 20 to 40 years ago. Now I buy foreign manufacture tools. Even a 100% tariff on Chinese tools it would be a better value than American made tools. Many mechanics despise the prices of American made tools and say mean things to people that say they are better. The world is so strange.
Link to relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLm3y3HjYI
Michael Hudson has pointed out that because of costs of living that are socialized in China (health care education etc.) are borne by the individual here the USA, we cannot produce goods competitively with them because the per-capita labor bill must be sufficient to enable the worker to cover those predatory costs and related debts he or she incurs here in our neoliberal paradise.
https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/generate/all/global/all
The Nature Index
1 August 2023 – 31 July 2024 *
Rank Institution ( Count) ( Share)
1 Chinese Academy of Sciences ( 8542) ( 2567)
2 Harvard University ( 3660) ( 1109)
3 University of Science and Technology of China ( 2232) ( 753)
4 Peking University ( 2763) ( 729)
5 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences ( 3603) ( 723)
6 Zhejiang University ( 1852) ( 711)
7 Max Planck Society ( 2675) ( 700)
8 Nanjing University ( 1678) ( 681)
9 Tsinghua University ( 2239) ( 662)
10 Shanghai Jiao Tong University ( 1728) ( 616)
11 French National Centre for Scientific Research ( 4460) ( 614)
12 Sun Yat-sen University ( 1507) ( 602)
13 Fudan University ( 1595) ( 572)
14 Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres ( 2881) ( 567)
15 Sichuan University ( 946) ( 488)
* Tables highlight the most prolific institutions and countries in high-quality research publishing for the year
At least the author correctly points out the bipartisan nature of the anti-China policies and Biden regime tariffs. As usual, there will be little substantive differences in the new DT regime.
“…Note this piece does not address another looming economic issue, that the Biden Administration ran very large budget deficits, and if Trump wants to have a more balanced budget as he professes…”
But our brilliant leader says that’s no problem, a little magical thinking and some crypto and poof! No more deficit. That’s wonderful news eh!
That way they can increase MICIMATT budgets in typical bipartisan fashion and have more for Genocide. It’s a win-win
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-bold-plan-bitcoin-wipe-180039234.html
‘…“Maybe we’ll pay off our $35 trillion dollars, hand them a little crypto check, right? We’ll hand them a little bitcoin and wipe out our $35 trillion,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business…’
New boss, same as the old: geriatric, cognitively-challenged nut jobs.
a obvious attempt at comic relief,
“The US is a technological powerhouse, spending more than any other country on research and development and winning more Nobel prizes in the last five years than every other country combined. Its inventions and economic successes are the envy of the globe. But the rest of the world needs to do everything in its power to avoid being too dependent on it.”
fake nobels and the inability to make a little screw for apple computer assembly in texas, and that large swaths of america, can no longer pay rent and eat at the same time is all you need to know.
search for the history of americas inflation under tariffs, not much to see, move along folks. now search for inflation under free trade, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
tariffs alone will not succeed, capitalism cannot function without socialism.
so any attempts to ressurrect americas industrial strengths without socialism, will increase inflation. but its increasing even without tariffs.
Thank you for succinctly boiling down my rant!
Your comment and CA’s above: “Really important: Total Factor Productivity in manufacturing simply stopped increasing in 2008.”
That’s when financialization cut it’s last tether to reality. Those with financial assets have since then inhabited a spreadsheet fantasy world where money grows on trees the Fed waters, like pistachios on the vanishing water table of the California valley. Everyone else has been dealing with a rapidly eroding reality where increasingly nothing works. 2008 is when the combination of Philip Bobbits’ “Market State” and QE turned western capitalism into a death cult where the love of money justifies the death of everything not cushioned by wealth in an ever narrowing and concentrating circle of wealth.
I feel as if yourself and Marx miss the true nature of the beast. Darwinism cum Neoliberal Economics, is actually the practice of how to kill people at a sustainable rate, a feature, not a bug. Man has few natural predators, so we created the investment banker. There is to be no socialism, this would be counter-counterproductive.
Interesting question: how many of those were economics “Nobels”, where obviously the Chinese, and almost anybody sane, would be at a disadvantage, not believing in voodoo neoliberalism?
That is just a setup for the punchline.
It looks like something taken from The Onion, or Ukrainska Pravda.
Elon The Oligarch wants to cut a couple trillion from the budget. Let me guess: more subsidies, fat contracts and tax breaks for him, more for MICIMATT, more for his beloved coups and regime changes, more for Genocide. And Congress will back this with bipartisan gusto!
Housing, infrastructure, health care, environmental issues.. nah, not important.
Conflict of interest? No. (that’s not in the NewSpeak dictionary). Institutional corruption? No such thing.
As predicted: oligarchy, kleptocracy, genocide and the Washington Consensus always win the election.
I think Yves got straight to the point: ” if one were so inclined”. I don’t remember where I read it but the current oligarchs running the US are mostly hereditary oligarchs and therefore having the abilities of trust fund kids. They wouldn’t be able to produce anything but they sure want their wealth to be preserved and increased, happily at everybody else’s expense. That is, there is no will to give out money that may end up in others’ pockets and, horror of horrors, making normal people’s lives better. Where can you find this necessary inclination.
Dmitry Orlov gave a scathing review of the state of the Union https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpt3ackC5I
Elon will re-invent trickle-down economics, and call it Mega Ultra Stream-down Konomics.
Sad, but likely true Jonny.
Wolff has a new one out about the panic setting into the west, on how far chinese technology has come. leaving the west far in the dust. can’t find it, maybe someone else can.
The great David Graeber explaining our politics
https://x.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1854101883255701828
Lovely excerpt. Gets right to the core.
Lots of western bias in this article:
“The US is a technological powerhouse, spending more than any other country on research and development and winning more Nobel prizes in the last five years than every other country combined”
On the other hand’ Russia has proportionate to population many more STEM graduates than the US. China purely numerically has many more. In terms of patents, last year China had ⅔ more than the US and 12x more industrial design applications
“the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the thousands of deaths and the energy crisis that followed, could have been avoided had the Biden administration been clearer to Russian president Vladimir Putin about the consequences of an invasion”
This is nonsense. Russia has suffered very little in ‘consequences’ from the war. It has lost some thousands of soldiers lives, and some billions which very well may be eventually returned, but it has gained uncalculable billions in new population and (previously actual) potential industrial output and mineral wealth from the eastern Ukraine (although that was not the basic reason for the military action).
“the strategic problem of [Germany] becoming too dependent on Russian gas”
And now the ‘strategic problem’ of Germany is that it is ‘too dependent’ on US LNG
Basically these two statements are just political propaganda, and essentially meaningless. Germany has to get it’s fuel from somewhere, as it has none of its own (apart from coal, which it has banned). Russia showed no inclination to blackmail Germany over its gas supply, while it would be a bold propagandist who would say that the US would never do so.
There was the study done by Lego where they asked 3,000 children from the U.S., U.K., and China on what they wanted to be when they grew up. Chinese kids wanted to be scientists and astronauts, while western kids wanted to be Youtubers.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts
I believe we will continue to see a growing discrepancy in science and engineering skills between the West and China. I also think other non-Western countries will start to look towards China for ways to improve their education and growing a more competent work force. The US can of course continue to attract skilled foreign workers with the H-1B visa, but just how many of those will stay permanently is another issue.
Rather than a “technological powerhouse”, I’d say that the US is an entertainment powerhouse, and based on the Lego study, will continue to grow in that direction in the future. Americans will innovate the next forms of entertainment and social media, and while not having the skills to implement them, there will be enough H-1B foreigners to build them.
Use of “full-scale invasion” is a tell for me that an author is pushing an official narrative.
What is it with the China “industrial overcapacity” problem? Does he think Boeing not being able to reliably make an airplane is a good thing? Are Western economists soon to be lauding the fact that the West’s industrial under capacity means everything is going according to plan?
What is so hard about saying China’s industry is extremely large and very capable? It really is an amazing achievement. The Western neoliberal governments that are so intent on their own self immolation by oligarchy rule should be a little bit more grateful that China is not that stupid.
It’s just comical. Doubly so that it’s capitalists complaining about communists. Imagine USSR politburo writing strongly worded letters to West that they are producing too much cars and toilet paper.
The whole “industrial overcapacity” trope is ludicrous on its face. China will simply sell whatever America and Europe don’t buy to Asia, Africa and South America. As a result all of those regions will experience an increase in their standard of living.
Where will those places find the money to buy Chinese products? The Chinese don’t want to hold crappy currencies. They are addicted to US Dollars.
I shall be unkind and simply say that the author is in the “narrative bubble. he may well be correct as to the economics, but the context is badly skewed.
Only if “economics” means narrative bubble created by people that received prize that makes mister Nobel turn in his grave.
Renaud Foucart must be a very good dancer. When he said ‘War is raging in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, and now Lebanon. The world had not seen as many civilian casualties since 2010’ he managed to completely tap-dance around who was waging most of those wars and who was killing all those civilians there.
Roger Boyd’s substack referenced a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wherein they track 64 critical technologies. The report notes that in 2003-2007 the USA led in 60 of the 64 critical technologies. In the most recent 5 years from 2019-2023 the USA leads in 7 of the 64. Conversely China led in 3 of the 64 in the 2003-2007 time range but in the most recent 2019-2023 range now leads in 57 of the 64. This seems to belie the idea that the USA is the world’s technology powerhouse and the envy of the world. Perhaps the world should look towards China and not hope for the USA to “save it”.
Meanwhile, what is Trump going to do to change any of this? Far as I can see his plan was to run on a policy of reversing the mistakes of his predecessor, and then double down on those mistakes as soon as he was elected.
And, by the way, that was Biden’s plan, too.
Trump has a victory plan that is better than the one Zelenski made.
Well until 1913 US Federal Government was funded exclusively by Tariffs. If Trump wants to abolish Federal Income Tax he needs to shrink Federal Government which means scrapping the Defence Budget, FBI, CIA, and transferring costs to the States such as Social Security and MediCare
I think it would return to the original notion of a small Federal government in place of one which used MIC to override the States and control them through defence facilities and production selectively located to buy votes
Sorting out the Accumulated Debt is the big issue and the annual deficit spend. Since taxes do not cover the US budget maybe tariffs will need to be 400% ?
I favour a National Sales Tax of say 35% on most items with say 20% on food and housing to complement the tariffs
You hate the poors. Sales taxes are extremely regressive.