I begin today more distressed than ever about the situation in today’s “fourth estate,” as there are a welter of “bombshell” stories the conservative media and blogosphere are freaking out over while the Axis media are ignoring them entirely…and vice-versa. I have no way to figure out “what’s happening.”
If you can, please: speak up.
I should mention that the clip above from “Poltergeist,” one of the most frequently used in the Ethics Alarms Hollywood Clip Archive, is a small measure of immortality that I can confer to the memory of Dominique Dunne, the actress who played “Dana.” She was murdered by her boyfriend in 1982, the same year the movie was released. Dominique Dunne was 22.
Ethics Alarms 
I hate when history is misrepresented in films.
In “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, a group of government agents arrive to tell Indiana Jones that there is a German archeological dig going on in Egypt, searching for the Ark of the Covenant. One of the agents claims, “Hitler’s a nut on the subject. He’s crazy. He’s obsessed with the occult”.
No, he wasn’t.
Hitler wasn’t an atheist but he didn’t believe in mainstream religions and he certainly didn’t put any stock in the occult. Astrologers were banned and arrested in Nazi Germany. He openly criticized Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess, who were believers in the occult, but otherwise let them alone to do what they wanted as long as they did everything else he wanted.
But many a documentary has been inspired by those words and here we are today believing Hitler was heavy into the supernatural.
I wonder if it also inspired the U.S. government to use a psychic to find the Ark?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001300180002-7.pdf
These are recently declassified documents on the CIA’s website (my Trump-deranged sister first asked me what my source was for this – as if anything on a government website would be credible to her now that Trump is in charge) reported on a few news sites.
There are many theories involving the Ark. Some, like me, believe it lost to history – probably destroyed at some point. Others, like my Dad, think it will re-emerge at the end times. Still others think that it was taken up to Heaven after it was captured and the first Temple was destroyed. An Ethiopian church actually claims to have it and, yet, no one else can confirm it (nor, oddly, has it been forcibly taken by any number of interested groups or organizations).
I suppose there might be some merit in searching for a lost icon like that if you have some reason to believe that it still exists and have strong evidence where it might be.
But psychics?
If you look at the document, there is nothing there about the Ark that couldn’t have been learned from the Bible (though there was no silver used for it unless there have been alterations throughout the centuries) or from watching “Raiders”. A wet place is not a good place to keep a box made of wood but, overlaid with gold, it wouldn’t have a reaction.
But, I suppose, if a psychic said it existed….
My sister made some blasé comment about wacko religious people – as if Christians would use psychics – and dismissed the whole thing.
I wonder what else our government has used psychics for? I wonder how much money was put out for these experiments? I wonder if the American public truly has any idea what nutty ideas have been tried in their name with their tax dollars?
I’ve been waiting for your post of Trump’s tariffs.
Not an ethics topic, and I barely passed Ec I in college. There’s an ethics angle or two there I might explore eventually.
I don’t know if this is an ethics angle per se but the tariff objections illustrate without question America’s unwillingness to suffer any short term discomfort in order to obtain long term security. I keep hearing that Trump is a narcissist such that he has this inappropriate sense of sense but one of the clinical signs of narcissistic behavior is a sense of entitlement. The minute any thing Trump does that causes some immediate discomfort or loss many in the public feel they are entitled to what they had before.
A large percentage of the stock market gains are illusory because much of that growth was driven by inflated profits and subsequently inflated stock prices. Consumer and producer prices rise before costs are actually incurred because labor costs are negotiated on longer term contracts as are so many of our commodities. The Biden administration fueled those inflated profits – and he said as much in a speech in the port of Baltimore – when he poured 2 trillion dollars into the economy with too few goods to buy. Employment gains in the last 4 years were in large measure government jobs that produce intangibles whose values are only measured in terms of their employment.
People need to realize that the algorithms used by traders are driving much of the sell off because tariffs are deemed to be anti-growth. What the buy/sell programs are not factoring in is the 6 trillion dollars worth of investment commitment which will revitalize our semi-conductor industry and other strategic industries. We have to buy spare avionics parts for our military and the base materials for our medicines from our political adversary who has a 100 year plan to dominate the globe.
Ironically, the people most concerned about the environment seem to be making the most noise about the expected reductions in consumer spending on imported goods. Would they have been happier if Trump did not raise tariffs but instead required all imported goods be manufactured in a manner consistent with the same environmental and child labor and safety standards we impose on our own manufacturers? I thought the United States was leading the way to global environmental Armageddon because it would not join the Paris Climate Accord. Environmentalism begins and ends with the amount of consumption demanded so lowering consumption should be a good thing right? Saving is deferred consumption and how people become wealthy through investment. Consider these rising prices a signal not to buy which will increase your savings rate and allow you to invest in money making productive ventures.
In my mind, in light of our debt that is approaching 37 trillion dollars which is roughly $255,172 per household we have an ethical duty and obligation to find ways to reduce our debt that will have to be paid by someone else. If we are actually concerned about individual rights, the global environment, and whether or not this nation does not fall to some Pacific rim totalitarian regime who possesses the manufacturing capacity that we willingly disposed of so that we can play with the shiny new trinket produced elsewhere because we wanted more stuff to buy, then we are ethically obligated to tighten our belts a little bit now or else the belt will be used on us later.
COTD material, Chris (already archived in my EA Comment File); I was hoping you’d weigh in on this.
Deserving of mention (ATTN: Marisa) is that the result of off-shoring all that manufacturing, and the attendant jobs, has forced Lefty (much to their chagrin) to concede that America’s emissions of a trace gas essential to all Mother Gaia life forms (AKA C02) have been reduced, while those of most the bogus Paris Accord signatories have not.
PWS
Paul, Thanks
I should have pointed out that reduced consumption of imports either increases consumption of domestically produced choices which will have a positive effect on GDP or will increase savings rates that tend to lower the costs of borrowing for real domestic investment which also leads to higher short and long run GDP. Any loss of consumption spending can be offset by higher real domestic investment which means the purchase of property, plant and equipment and not buying stocks on the exchange.
All the hype about inflation fails to consider that tariffs are an avoidable tax. Unlike the $1.5 billion in new taxes imposed on Marylanders by Wes Moore Marylanders can shift consumption decisions to avoid the taxes. Moore’s tax hikes are unavoidable and simply shift spending decisions from households to government which tends to reward political allies.
The stock exchange reflects only near term profitability and if I hear one more pundit quote Keynes regarding the long run in which we are all dead I will point out that Keynes was talking only about the people making the decisions for future generations he was not talking about the mortality of those future generations we are so willing to indenture because our insatiable desires for more now.
There’s a lot here, but Tyler Cowen said “This is perhaps the worst economic own goal I have seen in my lifetime.”
That worries me.
There is a joke among economists which says that if you laid all the economists end to end you will never reach a conclusion. The point is that relying on one opinion or focusing only on one facet of the economy does not provide adequate information regarding the efficacy of a policy prescription.
Professor Cowen is a neo classical theorist whose audience leans left. Neo-classical theory is predicated on free markets but it appears that most demand the US be totally without barriers to trade while ignoring the fact that most countries have significant tariffs and barriers to our goods. You will not find Neo Classical theorists lamenting slave labor in China or children dying in cobalt mines in Africa. No, this is part of the libertarian philosophy which adopts the cultural relativist positions if it benefits their interests.
Movements in the stock exchange merely reflect the expected profitability of existing firms. Very little of the money invested in the markets winds up buying new equipment because firms prefer using debt not selling stock which is more expensive.
Meh I don’t think politics has anything to do with Cowen’s analysis. Unless you can point to something actually wrong with it.
The consensus amoung economist is that this is a disaster.
“The consensus amoung (sic) economist (sic) is that this is a disaster.”
“Science is not about consensus, and consensus is not science.” B. Rutan
And my personal fave:
“Consensus Is Everyone Saying Collectively What No One Thinks Individually” A. Eban
PWS
Couldn’t disagree with these quotes more.
Why would you listen to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Makes no sense to me!
Here is an interesting article about the state of “science” at NIH
The Corruption in NIH-Funded Research
I’ll see that and raise you: The Irreproducibility Crisis Of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, And The Road To Reform
PWS
Marisa wrote, “The consensus among economist is that this is a disaster.”
RED FLAG ALLERT!!!
Anyone that seriously writes “consensus among ________” anywhere on Ethics Alarms has swallowed the fear mongering, paranoid, magic 8 ball, propaganda narratives as fact or is a propagandist.
Please get out of your apparent bubble Marisa and allow the wings of s skeptic fly you out of the muck; people that are saying/writing things like “consensus among ________” are lying straight to your face, don’t be gullible and swallow it.
“Meh I don’t think politics has anything to do with Cowen’s analysis.” (bold mine)
Of course not, that would ruin the narrative.
PWS
Don’t care about narratives, only empirical fact.
No bubble here! I read a lot and that IS the consensus among economists. Here and abroad.
Anti-intellectualism is very stupid. Wall Street, JP Morgan, Noah Smith, The Hill, Scott Sumner, many more trustful sources. Even Richard Hanania, a right winger who voted for Trump. I could of course go on and on.
You need to have a willingness to accept accurate sources of information.
And there is something called empirical reality. You just have to have a willingness to accept it.
Marisa wrote “I read a lot and that IS the consensus among economists. Here and abroad.”
Double down on that nonsensical narrative if you like but it doesn’t reflect well on your critical thinking skills.
Marisa wrote “You need to have a willingness to accept accurate sources of information.”
That’s a really interesting statement after you doubled down on an obvious propaganda narrative.
Marisa wrote “And there is something called empirical reality. You just have to have a willingness to accept it.”
You owe me a keyboard. I just spit out my drink all over my keyboard when I read that.
But of course, your “empirical reality” is the only “empirical reality” in existence, how very biasedly arrogant of you. Now climb down off that high horse before you fall an hurt yourself.
Marisa, It’s become really obvious to me that you’re parroting propaganda narrative that fits your bias. Spitting out that “empirical reality” nonsense is almost as arrogant as saying that you’re sources are the keeper of all knowledge that is good and wise as long as they agree with your bias. I’m sure you consider what you’ve read from your sources as “settled science” too. There’s some things I can’t fix.
I have real world experience supporting my opinion on tariffs, and if Jack chooses to post the Guest Post I just submitted you might understand “empirical reality” a bit more and parrot less propaganda. If Jack chooses not to post it, I’ll come back here in a couple of days and submit all 1100 words of it in a comment.
The tariffs won’t be a disaster in the long run for the USA, claiming that it will be is pure fear mongering. Your sources are terribly biased and closed minded regarding tariffs and a lot of your individual sources are biased against anything President Trump does.
Sorry, what’s propaganda exactly?
Propaganda: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Which sources are biased and what part of their analysis is wrong? Are you an economist?
Seriously, you don’t understand what predicting the future fear mongering is? Seriously?
It’s a crystal ball prediction of the future that cannot be supported with verifiable facts from the future but yet it’s being presented as if it’s verified fact, and you swallowed it, whole. That Marisa is the very definition of pure propaganda as defined.
Propaganda: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I’ve been writing this for a while…
Be especially skeptical of ANY narrative that’s presented in opposition to Donald Trump. Think very critically. Dig very deep. Do your own damn homework.
My bad I was Asking what did I say That was propaganda?
Go back and reread the first two comments I posted as replies to your comments and let’s see if you can answer your own question. The first reply was posted at April 4, 2025 at 7:46 pm am and the second reply was posted at April 4, 2025 at 10:38 pm.
Here is that Guest Post I was talking about…
Tariffs Have Been Needed For Decades
[Text removed as unauthorized, but shell retained to preserve the reply.]
You know full well that those at the NR are anti-Trump. The NeoCons at NR are as wedded to the orthodoxy of permanent wars and a central powerful government to promote their antiquated ideas of imperialism and social structures as the NYT and the Atlantic are wedded to the belief that abortion is health care and progressive taxation will lift people out of poverty through expanded government programs.
The old guard conservatives and the progressives are today’s uni-party that lives large on the derivation of incomes from pushing economic policies that they themselves personally benefit. When the NeoCons and the progressives start considering the impact of their decisions on future generations an enact policies that serve to protect those who will have to shoulder the financial burdens of the profligate spending taking place right now I might have some respect for their integrity on these matters.
The consensus of economists at one time concluded that unfettered capitalism was the gold standard for economic growth. That was until Keynes challenged the proposition that prices always immediately equilibrate and that government intervention was needed to stabilize economies. Keynesian theory saw active government management of the economy as the best course of actions and later the monetarists consensus was that only money and its velocity had anything to do with the price level so the FED should manage the money supply through open market operations to hit targeted inflation levels. Inflation, if you do not know drives near term profits which drives investment. Each theory is fine as far as it goes but only game theory evaluates the interaction of discrete players (read different economies).
Where was Cowen when the Biden administration pushed through the American Recovery Plan which drove prices through the roof when they pumped 2 trillion into the economy with nothing available to buy? I would agree with you that politics plays no role in his assessment had he weighed in on that decision as well; but he did not. Therefore, I can only conclude that his comments now, while apolitical in analysis, were in fact political in spirit as are most of those whose livelihoods are predicated ostensibly on predicting the what the markets will do. Unpredictability, is a recipe for losses as much as it is a source of potential gain. However, investors fear loss more than they want extraordinary gains that is why so many hate the billionaires because they do what others fear.
Keynes postulated that animal spirits drive economic decision making and politics drive those animal spirits. In a world in which Cowen sees as a new type of economy where the technologically savvy will rule the day leaving the tech illiterate as the perpetual poor, the media who seek his audience and the intelligentsia that claim consensus drive the politics which drives the herd. Thus, politics always plays a role in economic decision making. Cowen’s 2013 book on recommendation’s on thriving in a knowledge economy was not what I would call groundbreaking. His treatise called Creative Destruction is right from Joseph Schumpeter.
I don’t disagree with all of Cowen’s positions but when anyone makes a claim that Trump’s policies will not yield results even before they take effect is pure hubris. He may be correct in the long run, but when economists paint a bleak picture before a policy is implemented and the press focuses on the downside how is that not political when it affects human behavior?
The fastest way to ensure the Trump policies do not achieve the desired results on a global stage is if we undermine those policies with on own unwillingness to deal with change. Our adversaries have learned just to wait us out and we will give up because we think in terms of here and now and not about next year let alone the next generation. There is a reason that Leninists and Stalinists said the capitalists will sell us the rope that we will hang them with.
If we evaluate only the metric of short term GDP growth and not any other aspect of national security or long term economic security then the consensus has a point. But what if the goal is to prevent strategic industries such as energy, steel and and aluminum production, electronics, medicines and a host of other products necessary for the US to adequately defend our country from another die a slow ignominious death because the consensus of economists think that we should focus only on knowledge and leave the dirty work of production to those nations classified by the WTO as under development; whose manufacturing capacity was built on overly generous tariff structures provided by the US to help those developing nations prosper after WW2. Keep in mind that China is considered a developing nation and gets to impose rather restrictive barriers to US imports because of that designation.
China’s economy is about 5/8 the size of the US at just under $18T while ours is just over $29T in 2024. Our exports to China amount to less than 1/2percent of our GDP relative to their 2.5% of their GDP in exports to us. This means they lose 5 times as much of their GDP then we would lose if all trade stopped. Let me put this in perspective we import about $1/2T of goods from China yet we export only $143B to them. The amount we exported was about the same as all of the HHS discretionary budget. This did not include the mandatory spending of 1.7T and that is just one federal agency. China has its own economic problems right now and cannot withstand significant drops in exports to the worlds largest market. Unfortunately, if China believes we will revolt against Trump they do have the power to wait us out and they will win the economic security they need to further entrench China’s Belt and Road strategy of global domination that will result in them expanding their empire well into our hemisphere.
So yes, politics is at play here.
I think to challenge modern economic thinking and economists consensus, Trump’s tariffs would have to make sense economically, which they do not.
What metric do you want me to use?
I, as well as the administration admit that these tariffs if required to take effect will have a short term negative effect on consumption spending if there are few substitutes for the goods being imported. By substitutes I do not mean identical products produced domestically. For example if TV sales fall because of higher tariffs people may shift their purchase from a 72 inch LED set to a more modest imported one or they may choose to spend more money on different forms of domestically produced entertainment.
Most of what we sell to China is agricultural products such as soybeans, rice and corn. The majority of the soy beans are converted to lubricants because that is cheaper than petroleum lubricants and must be used in food processing equipment. When you must feed billions of people you don’t have a lot of choices in food production. In short, demand elasticities will determine what is substitutable and what is critical and lack available substitutes.
Economists are arguing that these tariffs will have the same effect on the economy as the Smoot Hawley tariffs of 1930 which had a deleterious effect on our economy. The difference between then and now is that we are a net buyer of foreign goods and a net seller of services. In the balance of payments scheme of things only the merchandise account is being affected by the tariffs and not the services we sell overseas.
In 1930, it did set off a trade war but we already had high tariffs on those goods so we were adding tariffs on top of tariffs and selling knowledge based services overseas was incidental at best, those tariffs did harm the American economy as well as the global economy. Moreover, currency manipulation by current competitors such as China and the EU was virtually non existent because of the gold standard which prevented the artificial devaluation of currencies to make foreign made goods less expensive. We pay for imported goods in the producer countries currency so if the Yuan drops in value vis a vis the dollar by 5% then the cost of buying their goods falls. Conversely, if the dollar rises against foreign currencies then our dollar buys more and they have to pay more to get our production.
The Trump tariffs are minimal compared to then. Today we are also far better situated economically than the rest of the world to survive the short run costs of pushing for freer trade which is the end goal. We are not coming out of a drought that turned our food acreage into dust that blew away in the wind.
If you want to find fault with our trade policies look no farther that our debt which devalues the dollar relative to other currencies. A stronger dollar means that foreigners want the goods we produce because they need dollars to buy them. If they don’t spend them on goods they buy our debt because they have no use for dollars otherwise. If it were not for oil being denominated in dollars and our ability to produce massive surplus crops of commodity crops our currency would have far less value than it does.
You said “I think to challenge modern economic thinking and economists consensus, Trump’s tariffs would have to make sense economically, which they do not.”
I have spent considerable time providing detail on my position. I now ask why you believe they do not make sense from the perspective of promoting freer trade in the long run – meaning our producers are as able to access foreign markets for goods and services as the foreign producers are prior to the implementation of these tariff ploys; you should also address modern economists methods of being able to ensure long term viability of strategic industries necessary for the defense of the nation and its ability to defend others around the world; and if you can, explain why Americans want to offshore pollution and environmental damage that would occur here if our manufactures did not have to rely on imported metals and other mined commodities from third world nations that have far less stringent environmental an labor protections enacted by the government.
Actually, just answer why you believe that people are entitled to cheap goods that rely on oppressive labor practices in the third world and why Europe remains entitled to preferential trade agreements designed to help them rebuild after WW2.
I find it very interesting that once again we have short comments demanding explanations while proffering nothing substantive, being answered in length with very erudite exposition, being followed by more short, unsubstantial denials. Are we dealing with yet another sealion?
In order to understand the Trump tariffs, we have to back up decades. We have to examine the “experts” who felt that free trade and globalization was a wonderful thing. We have to watch American manufacturing pack up and leave for foreign shores (or lose to foreign competitors) from a combination of increased domestic regulations, cheap overseas labor, and lopsided trade agreements that have seen trillions of dollars flood out of the United States. We have seen corporations set up supply chains that span dozens of countries (as I learned while working for Schneider Electric), taking advantage of whatever tax situations exist, sometimes being lured back to the United States when the government attempted to reduce corporate tax rates and make investing in the US more attractive, but looking elsewhere when corporate tax rates increased and regulations continued to place increasing burdens on companies.
What we’ve seen recently is how those supply chains can become tangled in knots. Lock downs created logjams, but we’ve also seen how trade disruptions and the unplanned closure of ports has tangled up moving goods around the globe. As we are entering a period where major armed conflict could again be on the horizon (and anyone who truly believes we can have a world without wars is in denial about human nature), depending on foreign nations for manufacturing, relying on long shipping routes to receive materials, and risking long delays when we would need critical supplies is a severe risk. The United States needs to return manufacturing to its shores so it can be the juggernaut it needs to be when it comes to another global conflict. Moreover, having that ability to be the juggernaut in and of itself keeps nations in line. It is when other nations perceive that the United States is weak or will not respond that these despots and tyrants think they can safely pursuing their expansionist or genocidal policies.
Trump’s tariffs cannot be view in isolation. He is coupling them with unprecedented deregulation with the intent to make the US more attractive to business, bring manufacturing back to our shores, tap into our own plentiful reserves, and balance trade deficits. Because of the national debt, because of the country’s inflationary policies, all of that is going to require short term pain. But avoiding short term pain will never yield the long term benefits we need. Continuing on the path we’ve been following for most of my life, we will see more and more of our tax money swallowed into paying interest on the national debt; we will see the debt continue to swell despite that; we’ll see inflated prices continue, until finally that bubble bursts, and we either enter a stage of hyperinflation to try to keep people with sufficient money to buy goods, or watch the entire economy come crashing down, Weimar-Republic-style, wiping out the savings of millions of Americans and impoverishing an entire generation. That would also place the United States in the weakest position it has been globally in a hundred years, and you can bet all our enemies would take advantage of that weakness, leading to worldwide strife and greater suffering by far than anything Trump’s tariffs are causing now.
Consensus among experts on a particular topic can only go so far. Trump has to manage more than economics. He has to work with a geopolitical situation in which economics is but one facet. So while experts might be absolutely correct on the economics of an issue, they might still not be able to provide the correct answer to a multivariate equation that exists beyond their expertise. We’ve seen this many times in the past when expert consensus in one field would demand a particular action that is simply not feasible, whereas a less optimal solution is actually able to be implemented. But consensus among experts has suffered greatly in recent years, as we’ve discovered that groupthink can invade even expert opinion, that money can sway research results, and that politics can and has silence dissenting voices in order to make a consensus. Furthermore, consensus among experts can lead to stagnation, whereas bold challenges from what seem to be fringe voices can overturn entire paradigms.
Predicted objection: all of what I said is wrong, and I would need to provide mounds of evidence to back up what I’ve said.
Thank you, Cornelius and Chris for informative comments.
Primo, RH, and another entry to my already bursting-at-the-seams EA File! In an ironic twist of fate, the talented Marisa got a (IMO) spectacular discussion going; I fight to keep an open mind as I ponder whether that was the intent.
PWS
I am saving your post. Nice job
…and match!!
The point is that relying on one opinion or focusing only on one facet of the economy does not provide adequate information regarding the efficacy of a policy prescription.
Like lockdowns in reaction to COVID-19?
Game, set…
The roll out implies it wasn’t thought through when applying tariffs to uninhabited islands.
I see! I had been awaiting one, too. This is the only place I know of where issues are discussed politely and intelligently.The current hysteria in the press and social media is as frustrating as it is tiring.
Can anyone shed some light on the tariff issue? Trump’s rallying cry is ‘Make America rich again’, but aren’t tariffs passed on to consumers?
Japan imports a massive amount of food as well as petroleum products. With the exchange rate of 155-158/$1 this past year in addition to inflation we’ve seen items at our local Costco double in price. Cheese and chocolate chips are now luxury items (chocolate chips when from ¥1980 to ¥4980, cheese slices from ¥1280 to ¥2800). I can’t imagine prices if 24%tariffs are levied.
Crella,
I am going to directly answer your question here. Chris Marschner has written a great explanation, but I wonder if, without some of the basics, he might not seem to answer your concern. I know I had to sit down and review some of this stuff to make better sense of his comments. That being said, I feel like I’m throwing a limerick after a Shakespearean sonnet, and recommend you follow all he has responded to on the thread. I also welcome any corrections that I need in my analysis here.
You are correct that tariffs will be passed onto the consumer, which is part of the overall idea. The main theory behind tariffs like this is that with the increase of prices on non-American made goods, it will drive demand of American made goods. Companies will start feeling pressure to increase manufacturing in America. This, especially in light of Trump’s efforts in reduction of restrictions on companies, will drive an increase in American manufacturing.
Increased American manufacturing is meant to fix several problems for the nation. First, we have had a huge decrease in jobs outside the service sector (and most of those are government jobs). Increasing American manufacturing will create, in theory, a great number of quality American jobs, to make and then staff these manufacturing facilities needed. This will naturally increase wages and goods available, which in the long run, supports a healthy economy. The dollar will be stronger, and our people will have better jobs than our current, service-heavy economy. Another effect, if this works, is that many of the defunct manufacturing centers in the US, for example Detroit, may have the opportunity to rise out of the ashes and work toward becoming shining cities again, rather than a broken-down mess. Of course that depends on what they decide, but so many old manufacturing centers are now rotting because of all the business we sent overseas.
Americans currently rely on other nations, especially our geopolitical adversary China, for goods and materials. This is a security concern. Remember the chip shortage of 2020? We couldn’t get computer chips, made in Taiwan (which is under tremendous Chinese pressure) for our computers, cars, and a great many other essential goods in our current economy. If we increase American manufacturing, we can make these essential parts on our shores and reduce our reliance on other countries, especially ones that are not positively inclined towards us. This can increase national security and maintain/regain an elite status in the world, inasmuch as no one else is willing to be the police force of the world.
A major side-effect of these tariffs is environmental. China is well known for its horrible pollution in manufacturing, as well as the tremendous human costs in and from that manufacturing. India is little better. Most countries that emphasize manufacturing do not have much in the way of environmental strictures like we do. If we start manufacturing more goods in the US, while the US will see an increase in pollution, the world will see a drastic decrease, overall benefitting the entire world.
Tariffs are essentially the vehicle to push for “locally made, environmentally sourced” items. We have seen, for years, that people generally say they want locally sourced items, at least until the money factor gets involved. Consider the arguments people have made against buying cheaper products made by sweat shops rather than humanely produced items that cost more. Now Trump is trying to give American manufactures a hand up, with the ability to compete against those foreign manufactures who run people into the ground and pollute like crazy. The short run will be painful, but if this works, we will be in a far better place. We understand that for personal growth, pain is required. If you wish to be an awesome musician for example, you have to give up your free time for practice, often requiring a level of physical pain (I say as my hands and arms are currently mildly sore as I practice the immense music required for the Triduum), and certainly some mental and financial pain as you struggle on the hard sections and sometimes have to buy items to help your practice or maintain your equipment. Why should the growth of our country be any different?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really appreciate it.
I am following Chris, Cornelius and Ryan on this thread. They, and you, have helped me to understand this issue much better than I did before. Thank you very much!
Many many thanks to you, Ryan, Chris and the others for such thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on this subject.
It does make me more hopeful, even if I am not altogether convinced that this will turn out well.
On the one hand, I could wish that someone who looks deeper into a given subject than I think Trump does would be the one to make such monumental changes.
But on the other hand, sometimes it does take a bull in the china shop to implement real needed changes. Can anyone imagine another recent president who would have the confidence and the nerve to do this?
==============
Hehe, I have a few idle dollars in my Fidelity account — I wonder if prices have dropped enough for it to be time to put them to use?
Many many thanks to you, Ryan, Chris and the others for such thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on this subject.
It does make me more hopeful, even if I am not altogether convinced that this will turn out well.
On the one hand, I could wish that someone who looks deeper into a given subject than I think Trump does would be the one to make such monumental changes.
But on the other hand, sometimes it does take a bull in the china shop to implement real needed changes. Can anyone imagine another recent president who would have the confidence and the nerve to do this?
==============
Hehe, I have a few idle dollars in my Fidelity account — I wonder if prices have dropped enough for it to be time to put them to use?
PWS
This is gold!
BTW, this is crella. Word Press changed my name.
Marisa; please consider supplying a guest post on how trade agreements (NAFTA, et al) have undeniably…um…benefited American workers, from that fearlessly unbiased perspective for which you’re well known.
If time allows, include why the Harris supporting UAW now inexplicably FAVORS the Trump tariffs.
PWS
I don’t know enough to comment on trade agreements.
“I don’t know enough to comment on trade agreements.”
Manfully conceded; if you did, perhaps you wouldn’t be asking Jack to be your research monkey on tariffs…unless you were hoping to parlay that into an Orange Man Bad slobbering.
PWS
Well Jack isn’t an economist so I dont expect him to analyze the actual economics of the situation, just the political and ethical implications of Trump enacting tariffs that are bad.
Well, one thing is that we don’t know yet that Trump’s tariffs will be bad.
Yes, I grant that many economists think they will turn out badly for the U.S. I grew up being taught that tariffs were a bad thing in today’s world and that they helped deepen the Great Depression.
But we don’t know yet just what the impact of his tariffs is going to be. One thing that has caught many people by surprise is the belated realization that Trump is a true believer in tariffs, that he really does believe our country will be better off with what he is proposing.
That perhaps should have been obvious, but so many people just assumed they were a bluff or just a negotiating ploy or some such.
In a different field, Stephen Kotkin studied Stalin and other Soviets intensely (he’s written a 3 volume biography of Stalin). One of his conclusions that surprised many people was that the Soviet leaders were, in fact, actual Communists. They really believed in the ideology, they weren’t just using the system.
I will make the same assertion about Trump and tariffs — he’s a true believer and it looks like we are fixing to find out how it really works.
I wouldn’t have chosen this direction, but my fingers are crossed that it will work out.
There were oral arguments on Ford v. McKesson.
https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/98150/ford-v-mckesson/
The lawsuit was about a police officers suing a protest organizwr because the protest turned into a riot.
This story just popped up in the news today:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/04/travel/north-sentinel-island-us-tourist-arrested-intl-hnk/index.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
To start with: What an idiot! I was in India when the last idiot visited and died. That guy had visited once and survived, but was killed when he went back the next day. The heavy coverage of the event in India is why I learned about its existence. Most of the time I went to India, I took the West route, which means flying right over this island. I thought of the shipwreck stories where ships floundered and the survivors came to this island, but instead of safety they met death. Imagine the irony of surviving a ditching, only to be killed by tribal members.
There are two very different ethical issues regarding this story.
Firstly, this guy put the whole tribe in danger. The tribe is at great risk of disease. They’ve never been exposed to many. Post covid, there is one more deadly disease to worry about.
Secondly, for those not familiar, the country of India has decided the best way to deal with the North Sentinelese is to go full hands off. They consider it their duty to protect the isolation of the tribe and do so with vigor. Very, very ethical conduct by a country that often lacks ethics.
I read this story earlier. What was the point of leaving soft drink bottles there? Was he trying to see if the tribe started bickering over them ala “The Gods Must Be Crazy”?
Imagine if the policy throughout all history was to never contact any outside “tribe” for fear of your own culture rubbing off on theirs.
It would just peachy! We’d all still be like the North Sentinelese!!!
The year is 2504957 AD, humanity has populated the galaxy. We’re contemplating ways to travel to the next galaxy as the collective AI powered by all deceased consciouses solve all manner of problems. The star of the Humans’ home world, Sol is expanding so much that life on Earth will be impossible in a matter of decades.
Someone suggests saving the North Sentinelese but decide not to because we don’t want to undermine their culture or expose them to diseases or something.
Seems SanFranNan, FeelThe Bern, and Cryin’ Chuckie were vehemently FOR TARIFFS before they were agin’ ’em; to wit:
SanFranNan
FeelTheBern
Chuckie
PWS
Fascinating. I’d say “I’m not surprised,” but I’m such a sap: no matter how dishonest and hypocritical these people are, I still think some integrity has to surface somewhere, some time.
Main Event- our go to bowling alley because of all the fun additional activities- has replaced the tradition pin setting machines with pins attached to strings to pull everything back up.
This has the effect of slowing the fall of pins (and affecting their ability to knock over others)
AND
The string knocks over some that would otherwise not knock over. I’ve had one pin stand back up *in the gutter* because of the string and it counted against me.
While it is ethical for businesses to save money it is not ethical for businesses to fundamentally change their stated product in order to do so.
People acting a fool in the background of the final four interviews on the Alamo grounds are universally unethical.