Podcasts about Protectionism

David takes on the idea that protectionism and globalization are chief rivals, and instead suggests that the chief rival of protectionism is free enterprise itself. He critiques Joe Nocera's recent Free Press article suggesting that the protectionists have been vindicated, and instead suggests that the entire protectionist agenda is essentially the plight of the central planner. A careful critique of the tariff dogma, combined with a non-revisionist view of what has transpired in trade and culture over the last few decades!

For a long time, Republicans and many Democrats espoused some version of free-trade economics that would have been familiar to Adam Smith. But Donald Trump breaks radically with that tradition, embracing a form of protectionism that resulted in his extremely broad and chaotic tariff proposals, which tanked markets and deepened the fear of a global recession. John Cassidy writes The New Yorker's The Financial Page column, and he's been covering economics for the magazine since 1995. His new book, “Capitalism and Its Critics: A History,” takes a long view of these debates, and breaks down some of the arguments that have shaped the U.S.'s current economic reality. “Capitalism itself has put its worst face forward in the last twenty or thirty years through the growth of huge monopolies which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability,” Cassidy tells David Remnick. “And young people—they look at capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.”

In this episode of 'Hashtag Trending: The Weekend Edition,' host Jim Love welcomes motivational speaker Dave Howlett to discuss the increasing incivility and polarization seen in professional and social communications, notably showcased through a LinkedIn conversation. Dave, who has a background in sales and a unique approach to breaking down organizational silos, shares his method of using the concepts of 'gears' to understand and navigate through conflicts and differences. They delve into the importance of empathy, trust, and effective communication in developing a more cohesive working and social environment. Practical strategies for repairing relationships and fostering collaboration in divided communities are also discussed. Listeners are encouraged to replace judgment with curiosity and to take active steps towards bridging gaps in understanding. 00:00 Introduction and Host's Commentary on Online Incivility 00:57 The Impact of Political Polarization on Business Communication 02:26 Introducing Dave Hallett: A Motivational Speaker's Journey 04:51 Dave Hallett's Background and Early Influences 08:02 The Art of Sales and Persuasion 14:43 Developing the Three Gears Concept 20:53 Exploring Second Gear: Incentive-Driven Behavior 24:02 Exploring First Gear: Self-Interest and Narcissism 29:23 Exploring Third Gear: Doing the Right Thing 34:18 Fear and Protectionism in Politics 34:52 The Echo Chamber of Social Media 36:05 Struggles with Open-Mindedness 37:24 The Importance of Self-Awareness 38:46 Engaging with Opposing Views 40:00 Tribalism in Political Discourse 41:39 The Purity Test in Social Groups 41:50 Health and Lifestyle Choices 43:29 Breaking Down Silos 46:57 Curiosity Over Judgment 48:11 Understanding Different Perspectives 56:04 Common Goals and Human Connection 01:02:30 Repairing Damaged Relationships 01:07:52 Final Thoughts and Takeaways

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has stressed multilateralism and free trade at a BRICS meeting in Brazil (01:05). The American public has complained about U.S. economic policies barely 100 days after President Donald Trump began his second term in office (12:17). And Canadians have voted to keep Mark Carney as prime minister amid threats from the United States (16:11).

In his return to office, President Donald Trump has intensified the use of tariffs as a central instrument of U.S. trade policy. Recent measures have expanded tariffs on strategic imports, particularly from China, and continued the application of steel and aluminum tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, as well as broader sanctions under Section 301 investigations into intellectual property practices. These policies have been positioned as efforts to protect national industries, reduce trade deficits, and bolster American economic sovereignty, while also signaling a more assertive U.S. approach to global commerce. Despite these intentions, the structure and execution of these tariff measures have introduced volatility into global markets. Empirical analyses indicate that while select domestic sectors have experienced short-term benefits, overall economic costs—including higher input prices, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, and dampened investment—have offset many of the perceived gains. International institutions such as the IMF and WTO have linked prolonged tariff conflicts to downward revisions in global growth projections. Financial markets, in turn, have exhibited heightened sensitivity to tariff escalations, reflecting broader uncertainty about the sustainability of current trade policies. This episode examines the evolving nature of American trade strategy: What distinguishes short-term political signaling from durable economic policymaking? How have Trump's tariffs reshaped global supply chains, investor confidence, and the strategic positioning of U.S. industries? And as financial markets demand greater predictability and resilience, what future pathways could be pursued to align tariff and fiscal policy with long-term competitiveness and global stability? Our special guest this week is Professor Walid Hejazi. Professor Hejazi is the Academic Director of Executive Programs and Professor of International Business, Economic Analysis, and Policy at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He is also a Fellow at the Michael Lee-Chin Family Institute for Corporate Citizenship and serves on the Board of Directors of the David & Sharon Johnston Centre for Corporate Governance Innovation. Over the course of his career, Professor Hejazi has advised private-sector firms and collaborated extensively with Canadian and international governments on foreign investment and international trade strategy. He has testified before parliamentary and senate committees, taught extensively in Rotman's MBA, EMBA, and executive education programs, and delivered lectures in over 30 countries worldwide. His research focuses on the intersection of global competitiveness, trade dynamics, and strategic economic policy, making his insights particularly timely for today's conversation. Join us as we delve into the consequences of tariff-driven protectionism, the gaps in America's current trade approach, and what more sustainable, market-stabilizing policies could look like in the years ahead. Produced by: Julia Brahy

Potentially good news for potato growers as word gets out that the Trump administration has begun talks with Japan to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

Potentially good news for potato growers as word gets out that the Trump administration has begun talks with Japan to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

Kevin Duffy joins us to discuss the case against China, whether it justifies the tariffs, and where this is all going. Sponsors: Federated Computer: Code: WOODS & ElevenFreebies.com Guest's Website: TheCoffeeCanPortfolio.com  Related Links: - Trump 2.0 — The Coffee Can Portfolio (Duffy, Dec-24) - Kevin Duffy: «I Think the Markets Are Heading for Trouble» (Duffy, Mar-25) - Protectionism and Destruction of Prosperity.PDF (Rothbard, 1986) - China's competitiveness is driven by low taxation, not by industrial policy | Mises Institute Show notes for Ep. 2633

5 - There is no winner in a tariff war and protectionism benefits no one by Australian Citizens Party

Chinese vehicles are relatively immune from the United States' tariff impacts due to the limited number of such direct exports to the US and nearly nonexistent sales of domestic brands in that market, said Cui Dongshu, secretary-general of the China Passenger Car Association.中国乘用车协会秘书长崔东树表示，由于中国对美直接出口汽车数量有限且自主品牌在当地市场销量近乎空白，中国汽车受美国加征关税的影响相对有限。Cui highlighted the strong growth potential of Chinese autos in other markets. He stressed the need for Chinese automakers to strengthen partnerships with companies from Belt and Road Initiative-involved regions and southern hemisphere areas.崔指出，中国汽车在其他市场展现出强劲增长潜力，他强调中国汽车制造商需深化与"一带一路"沿线地区及南半球区域企业之间的合作。Specifically, Cui said promoting the use of small-sized electric vehicles in those markets is key to addressing demand for navigating narrow streets due to inadequate infrastructure development in certain regions.崔东树特别指出，在基础设施发展相对滞后的区域市场，推广小型电动汽车应用是破解狭窄街巷通行需求的关键所在。"Currently, China's efforts in advancing the BRI have been fruitful, and there is strong demand for automobiles in these regions. There is substantial potential for gasoline-powered Chinese vehicles by ramping up the export of these products. Promoting plug-in hybrid models will also unlock tremendous opportunities due to cost-effectiveness and energy-efficiency," he said."当前中国'一带一路'建设成效显著，这些地区汽车消费需求旺盛。通过扩大传统燃油车出口，中国车企仍有巨大市场空间。此外，插电式混合动力车型凭借其成本效益与节能优势，也将释放巨大市场机遇。"Cui, citing data from the General Administration of Customs, said China exported only 116,138 vehicles to the US in 2024, accounting for a mere 1.81 percent of China's total auto exports.崔表示，根据海关总署的数据，2024年中国仅向美国出口了116,138辆汽车，占中国汽车出口总量的1.81%。In contrast, the so-called reciprocal tariffs imposed by the US have a more significant impact on European, Japanese and South Korean automakers. Huatai Securities predicts that the 25 percent additional tariffs imposed by the US will affect 20 percent of direct exports from Japan and South Korea, and 30 percent of direct exports from German automakers, translating to an estimated sales impact of approximately 270,000, 200,000, and 160,000 vehicles, respectively, in 2025.相比之下，美国实施的所谓"对等关税"对欧洲、日本和韩国汽车制造商的影响更为显著。华泰证券研报预测，美国加征的25%额外关税将影响日韩车企20%的直接出口规模，对德国汽车制造商的直接影响范围更达30%。按此推算，预计到2025年将分别造成日、韩、德系车企约27万辆、20万辆和16万辆的销售缺口。Huatai Securities suggests that the US tariff policies may indirectly promote cooperation between China and other countries and regions, potentially enabling Chinese automotive companies to gain more market share in the EU and Southeast Asia.华泰证券认为，美国关税政策或将间接促进中国与其他国家和地区的合作，中国车企有望借此在欧盟及东南亚市场获取更大份额。As per the Ministry of Commerce, on April 3, both China and Europe agreed to swiftly resume negotiations on price commitments for electric vehicle anti-subsidy cases, fostering a favorable environment for promoting investment and industrial cooperation between Chinese and European enterprises.据商务部消息，4月3日中欧双方同意尽快重启电动汽车反补贴案价格承诺谈判，为中欧企业深化投资与产业合作营造良好环境。"China's global automotive market share is only around 35 percent, with Chinese brand vehicles accounting for less than 28 percent. Chinese brand vehicles have ample room for market share growth in many overseas markets," Cui said.崔东树指出："中国汽车全球市场份额仅约35%，其中自主品牌占比不足28%。在众多海外市场，中国品牌汽车仍具备充分的市场拓展空间。""With minimal presence in the US automotive market, the trade conflicts have minimal negative impacts on Chinese brand vehicles. There are numerous opportunities for Chinese brands to expand overseas, especially in countries without established automotive industries that welcome our localized products," he said."由于中国品牌汽车在美国市场存在感极低，贸易摩擦带来的负面影响微乎其微。中国品牌海外拓展机遇众多，尤其在缺乏本土汽车工业的国家，当地市场对我们本土化产品持开放态度。"Cui highlighted a growing need for Chinese autos from BRI-involved regions. He said accelerating the export of Chinese gas-powered vehicle products and hybrid models holds immense potential.他特别强调，"一带一路"区域对中国汽车的需求持续增长，加速中国燃油车产品与混合动力车型出口将释放巨大潜力。the General Administration of Customs海关总署market share市场份额trade conflicts贸易摩擦price commitments价格承诺electric vehicles电动车

"Compounding Errors" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Website for the show: https://governamerica.com Vicky's website: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22613-govern-america-april-12-2025-compounding-errors Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern or 8AM Pacific at http://governamerica.net or on your favorite app. Trade war ramps up, as does market volatility. Goldman Sachs issues recession alert, then immediately rescinds it. Elon Musk and Peter Navarro spar. Trump insults nations that are willing to talk, praises Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and signs more executive orders. Bill Maher on his White House visit: "where's Glenda the good witch?" Also, judicial overreach by activist judges: What can be done? What should be done? What has been done?

Shaky markets. Panicky clients. Accountants, it's your time to shine.  Accounting ARCWith Liz MasonCenter for Accounting TransformationPresident Donald Trump's tariff announcement has sent shockwaves through the business community—and accountants are on the frontlines of the fallout. In the latest Accounting ARC podcast, Liz Mason, CPA, and Ron Baker, CPA (inactive), analyze the implications of Trump's decision to impose a 10% blanket tariff on all imports, alongside a dramatic 54% tariff on goods from China.  MORE Accounting ARC: Crypto, Cash, or Chaos? The Fallout of an IRS-Free America | Is Agentic AI a Game Changer or Game Ender? | Kelly Mann: Thriving Against All Odds | Are We Ready for the Hidden Risks of AI in Accounting? | The Research Imperative: Why Data Drives Accounting Success | How Coaching Can Unlock Professional Success | Demystifying Accounting Governance |  Top 10 Red Flags to Watch for in Accounting Offices | Jeremy Dubow: Private Equity as a Catalyst for Growth | Break the Burnout Cycle in Accounting | Accounting in Transition: 2024 Reflections & the Road Ahead "Tariffs are taxes—plain and simple," says Mason, CEO of  High Rock Accounting. "And businesses need to prepare for those costs to flow straight to consumers." The decision, justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, aims to curb the U.S. trade deficit. Yet Baker, founder of the VeraSage Institute and radio co-host of the www.VoiceAmerica.com show: The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, warns of potential unintended consequences. “Protectionism historically leads to retaliation, and that's bad news for everyone,” he notes. 

Debate between Keith Rabois and Zach Weinberg on what tariffs are actually trying to accomplish. One core theme: Tariffs aren't fully about “bringing back factories,” but rather a negotiation tool to eliminate foreign trade barriers - ultimately aiming to increase free trade, not restrict it.We also got into:- What each of them would do if they were in charge- Whether the trade deficit is a meaningful metric or just a misunderstood talking point- If tariffs could be part of an initiative to replace income tax — shifting toward a more consumption-based tax system- If tariffs could successfully be used as a non-military tool to reduce drug supply to the US- If there's a major disconnect between the new administration's rhetoric and the actual economic goals behind the policyOne of the deepest economic conversations from the show's recent history — and a rare debate where both sides had real logic behind their views.(00:00) Introduction and Host's Biases(00:46) Keith's Perspective on Tariffs(03:05) Zach's Perspective and Clarifying Questions(05:14) Debating Tariff Strategies(07:45) Economic Implications and Free Trade(13:31) Trump's Tariff Policies and Goals(16:57) Global Trade and Protectionism(25:52) Final Thoughts on Tariffs and Trade(29:16) Discussion on Trade Tariffs and Partners(30:17) Impact of Tariffs on GDP and Debt(31:20) Political Coalitions and Trade Policies(32:00) Tariffs as Consumer Taxes(33:30) Debate on Trade Deficit and Tariff Rates(36:53) Regulatory Reforms and Economic Policies(47:25) Fentanyl Crisis and Trade Negotiations(51:06) Closing Remarks and Future TopicsExecutive Producer: Rashad AssirProducer: Leah ClapperMixing and editing: Justin HrabovskyCheck out Unsupervised Learning, Redpoint's AI Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@UCUl-s_Vp-Kkk_XVyDylNwLA

In this episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, I'm giving my take (to the best of my ability—because I'm not a tariff expert and neither are most of the people chiming in right now) on Trump's gutsy new tariff move. It's the one that's got half the country cheering and the other half clutching their pearls. While the media yells “economic suicide,” I'm here to suggest that this strategy might actually work—but not overnight. We'll talk about the possibility of long-term gain, the reality of short-term discomfort, and the cultural obsession with instant results when what's often required is patience. I will also go over our collective short attention spans and why longer attention spans are needed for understanding complex issues like this. Every answer won't fit in a 15 second soundbite. At the end of the day, we'll have to pray, wait, and see. Some of the smartest plays take time to unfold.—https://noblegoldinvestments.com/learn/gold-and-silver-guide/?utm_campaign=21243613394&utm_source=g&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=&utm_term=noble%20gold&seg_aprod=&ad_id=698073353663&oid=2&affid=1&utm_source=google&affiliate_source=googleads_brand_bmbc&utm_term=noble%20gold&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADQ2DzJSJ_mi5cJo8dO2FNUs7uNy-&gclid=CjwKCAjwktO_BhBrEiwAV70jXtjSCyioSM2Hz1McTAlR3f8t3KCDDN3-XBWLaIzwJmiEGe0ztxIk5RoCnM0QAvD_BwE

Send us a text00:21 - Navigating pre-IPO stock opportunity in a shifting market17:00 - Protectionism's impact on pre-IPO stocks34:00 - Embracing efficiency: AI, automation, and the future of work

Get ready for a $3,500 iPhone.    To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/TheJeffWardShow

AP correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports Asian shares nosedive after the meltdown Friday on Wall Street over President Trump's tariffs and the resulting backlash from Beijing.

President Trump has imposed tariffs on imports from a lot of countries around the world - but for some reason has singled out Heard and McDonald Islands as a separate place to Australia on the list of "countries" affected. Who lives there? No one. Except penguins.So, what is a tariff? What is protectionism? And how will this affect the local penguin economy? Well, here's an explanation combined with a brief history of how protectionism was also central to Australia's inception and how it shaped our modern political parties, and also how we eventually decided to phase it out in favour of free trade.Support the channel on patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/AuspolExplainedLike Auspol Explained on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Auspol-Explained-107892180702388Music: Blue Sizzle by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Auspol Explained would like to acknowledge the Whadjuk Nyoongar people and their Elders as the owners and custodians of the Land that the episode was recorded and edited on. This Land was stolen and never ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal Land.

Political Science Professor Kevin Navratil discusses global trade with a special focus on tariffs and protectionism. He examines the benefits and drawbacks of both free trade and protectionism, exploring the potential implications on the global economy.

Moneycontrol analysis shows that India turned more protectionist between 2013 and 2023, with tariffs on roughly 20 percent of the imports rising. But India was not the only Asian country to turn more protectionist. Indonesia and Vietnam also raised tariffs on more goods than they reduced during this period. But China, US and EU reduced tariffs. However, between 2022 and 2023, India was among the few nations to reduce tariffs on more goods. Did protectionism help India and does a more open India mean more exports? We decode the answers with Gaura Sengupta, Chief India Economist, IDFC First Bank and Amitendu Palit, Senior Research Fellow and Research Lead (Trade and Economics) at the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.

The GOP faces a choice about how to move forward.

In this episode, we explore how globalization has shaped trade and innovation—and why rising protectionism is challenging its benefits. What happens when countries impose tariffs and trade restrictions? And how can policymakers navigate the balance between open markets and domestic interests?   Claudia Steinwender is a Professor of Economics at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Her research focuses on international trade, innovation, and economic history, with a particular emphasis on how globalization shapes firm behavior and trade dynamics.  

For market purists, any mention of the term industrial policy used to evoke visions of heavy-handed Soviet-style central planning, or the stifling state-centric protectionism employed by Latin American countries in the late 20th century. But that conversation turned dramatically over the last several years, as President Joe Biden's signature legislative achievements like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act showcased policies designed to influence and shape industries ranging from tech to pharma to green energy. My guest today, Harvard Kennedy School Professor Ricardo Hausmann, is the founder and director of the Growth Lab, which studies ways to unlock economic growth and collaborates with policymakers to promote inclusive prosperity around the world. Hausmann says he believes markets are useful, but have shown themselves inadequate to create public benefits at a time when public objectives like the clean energy transition and shared prosperity have become increasingly essential to human society. In a wide-ranging conversation, we'll discuss why industrial policy is making a comeback, tools that the Growth Lab has developed to help poorer countries and regions develop and prosper, and the uncertainty being caused by President Trump's pledge to raise tariffs and protectionist barriers.Ricardo Hausmann's policy recommendations:Encourage governments to track industries that are not yet developed but have the potential for growth and monitor technological advancements to identify how new technologies can impact existing industries or create new opportunities.Develop state organizations with a deep understanding of societal trends and industrial potential, similar to Israel's office of the Chief Scientist or the U.S. Presidential Commission on Science and Technology.Encourage governments to develop a pre-approved set of tools—including training, educational programs, research programs, and infrastructure—that can be quickly mobilized for specific economic opportunities.Teach policy design in a way that mirrors medical education (e.g., learning by doing as in a teaching hospital), because successful policy design requires real-world experience, not just theoretical knowledge. Ricardo Hausmann is the founder and director of Harvard's Growth Lab and the Rafik Hariri Professor of the Practice of International Political Economy at Harvard Kennedy School. Under his leadership, the Growth Lab has grown into one of the most well regarded and influential hubs for research on economic growth and development around the world. His scholarly contributions include the development of the Growth Diagnostics and Economic Complexity methodologies, as well as several widely used economic concepts. Since launching the Growth Lab in 2006, Hausmann has served as principal investigator for more than 50 research initiatives in nearly 30 countries, including the US, informing development policy, growth strategies and diversification agendas at the national, regional, and city levels. Before joining Harvard University, he served as the first chief economist of the Inter-American Development Bank (1994-2000), where he created the Research Department. He has served as minister of planning of Venezuela (1992-1993) and as a member of the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela. He also served as chair of the IMF-World Bank Development Committee. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Cornell University.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lillian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King of the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

In this episode of the Bharatvaarta podcast, host Roshan Cariappa is joined by panelists Ruchir Sharma, Surya Kanegaonkar, and Anang Mittal to discuss the potential impact of the Trump presidency on India and the broader world. The conversation covers a range of topics, including the potential for creative diplomacy, the state of India's indigenous military technology programs, and the effects of U.S. foreign policy on India's strategic autonomy. The panelists also discuss how India can take advantage of this period to reform its internal policies and redefine its role as a regional hegemon. With insights into defense, economic policies, and the evolving geopolitical landscape, this episode offers a comprehensive look at what India might expect and how it can best prepare for the future. Topics: 00:00 Sneak peak 01:21 Introduction 02:59 Trump's Policies and Global Reactions 08:15 India's Geopolitical Maneuvering 20:24 Modi's US Visit Highlights 27:40 Negotiating with Trump 37:09 Regional Powers and India's Role 45:13 Indian Talent Exodus and Innovation Challenges 01:00:29 Protectionism and Indian Industry 01:19:52 Multilateralism and Global Organizations 01:29:45 The Role of Non-State Actors in U.S. Influence 01:35:21 Opportunities for India Amid Global Shifts 01:38:30 The Need for Bureaucratic and Policy Reforms 01:41:19 Concluding Thoughts and Future Outlook

Since 2000, African countries eligible for preferential market access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) have seen a considerable increase in their exports to the US. But that piece of legislation comes up for renewal this year – while President Donald Trump and his protectionist views on global trade are in power. We take a look at what that could mean for key export sectors in Africa. Finally, our correspondents in Mexico look at how the local auto industry is dealing with the threat of tariffs.

If President Donald Trump goes through with his plan to levy sweeping tariffs on foreign imports, it wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. has done such a thing. Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930? Anyone? Those tariffs are widely credited with sinking the United States deeper into the Great Depression. And although global trade looks different nowadays, they can teach us a lot about how Trump’s protectionist approach to global trade could play out. On the show today, Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, explains how the Smoot-Hawley tariff debacle can shed light on the current moment, why the president has the power to wield tariffs in the first place, and how punishing trading partners could leave the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. Plus, what this fight has to do with the 1980s film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and Roomba vacuum cleaners! Later, one listener’s call to visit your local butcher. And, dating coach Damona Hoffman, host of the “Dates and Mates” podcast, answers the “Make Me Smart” question just in time for Valentine’s Day. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Tariffs on Trading Partners: Can the President Actually Do That?” from Council on Foreign Relations “One Response to Trump's Tariffs: Trade That Excludes the U.S.” from The New York Times “The United States has been disengaging from the global economy” from the Peterson Institute for International Economics “Protectionism 100 years ago helped ignite a world war. Could it happen again?” from The Washington Post “The US is one of the least trade-oriented countries in the world – despite laying the groundwork for today's globalized system” from The Conversation Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

If President Donald Trump goes through with his plan to levy sweeping tariffs on foreign imports, it wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. has done such a thing. Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930? Anyone? Those tariffs are widely credited with sinking the United States deeper into the Great Depression. And although global trade looks different nowadays, they can teach us a lot about how Trump’s protectionist approach to global trade could play out. On the show today, Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, explains how the Smoot-Hawley tariff debacle can shed light on the current moment, why the president has the power to wield tariffs in the first place, and how punishing trading partners could leave the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. Plus, what this fight has to do with the 1980s film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and Roomba vacuum cleaners! Later, one listener’s call to visit your local butcher. And, dating coach Damona Hoffman, host of the “Dates and Mates” podcast, answers the “Make Me Smart” question just in time for Valentine’s Day. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Tariffs on Trading Partners: Can the President Actually Do That?” from Council on Foreign Relations “One Response to Trump's Tariffs: Trade That Excludes the U.S.” from The New York Times “The United States has been disengaging from the global economy” from the Peterson Institute for International Economics “Protectionism 100 years ago helped ignite a world war. Could it happen again?” from The Washington Post “The US is one of the least trade-oriented countries in the world – despite laying the groundwork for today's globalized system” from The Conversation Got a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

In this fascinating discussion with Sean Flood from Ride Today we chat about his journey in the ever-evolving world of mobility, from his early days in electric rideshare to his current ventures in Ireland. It's always interesting to hear how entrepreneurs navigate the ups and downs of an industry, especially one as dynamic as micro mobility. Sean's insights on hardware sales and subscription models really highlight the innovative spirit driving the sector forward.One of the key themes we explore is the impact of tariffs on the mobility industry. Sean brings a grounded perspective, emphasizing how tariffs can drive inflation and affect pricing. It's not just about the political side of things; it's about the real-world consequences for businesses and consumers. We also delve into the evolution of micro mobility, from the early days of scooter dumping to a more strategic and community-integrated approach. It seems like the industry is finally finding its footing, with less public resistance and more focus on sustainable growth.Looking ahead, we get into the exciting possibilities of robotics and even personal aerial transportation. It's wild to think about the future of mobility extending beyond traditional vehicles to include delivery bots and maybe even personal bubble devices. Sean's vision really paints a picture of how innovation and technology could transform the way we move goods and services. It's clear that the definition of mobility is expanding, and the potential for growth is immense.Takeaways*   Ascend automates premium financing and collections.*   Sean Flood has a long history in micro mobility.*   The move to Ireland was prompted by a family decision.*   New ventures in mobility focus on hardware sales and subscriptions.*   Tariffs can drive inflation and impact pricing in the mobility sector.*   Micro mobility is evolving with less public resistance.*   Innovation in mobility is expected to grow significantly.*   The definition of mobility is expanding to include goods transportation.*   Personal aerial transportation could be a future reality.*   Stability is crucial for entrepreneurs in the mobility space.*   Litigation has significantly increased post-COVID, making it challenging to analyze trends.*   Battery safety regulations are becoming crucial due to the rise in fires caused by unsafe products.Chapters*   00:00 Revolutionizing Payments in Insurance*   01:19 Sean Flood's Journey in Micro Mobility*   02:42 Transitioning to Ireland and New Ventures*   04:03 The Future of Mobility: Strategies and Innovations*   06:00 Impact of Tariffs on the Mobility Industry*   14:04 The Evolution of Micro Mobility*   18:21 The Future of Mobility: Robotics and Aerial Transportation*   21:11 Litigation Trends Post-COVID*   24:53 The Impact of Battery Safety Regulations*   26:10 Wine and Risk: A Personal Touch*   30:11 Navigating Tariffs and Trade Relations*   34:24 AI and the Future of Jobs*   38:09 Sovereign Wealth Funds: A New Frontier?*   44:01 Product Recalls and Consumer SafetyConnect with RiskCellar:Website:https://www.riskcellar.com/Sean Flood:Ride Today Linkedin:https://www.linkedin.com/company/ridetoday/?originalSubdomain=ieBrandon Schuh:Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552710523314LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-stephen-schuh/Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/schuhpapa/Nick Hartmann:LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickjhartmann/ 

This week we talk about tax hikes, free trade, and the madman theory of negotiation.We also discuss EVs, Canada, and economic competition.Recommended Book: How Sanctions Work by Narges Bajoghli, Vali Nasr, Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, and Ali VaezTranscriptOn January 20, 2025, the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, was inaugurated as the 47th President of the US following a hard-fought election that he ultimately won by only a little bit in terms of the popular vote—49.8% to 48.3%—but he won the electoral vote by a substantial margin: 312 to opponent Kamala Harris' 226.Trump is the oldest person in US history to assume the country's presidency, at 78 years old, and he's only the second US president to win a non-consecutive term, the first being Grover Cleveland back in 1893.This new Trump presidency kicked off even before he officially stepped into office, his people interviewing government officials and low-level staff with what have been called loyalty tests, to assess who's with them and who's against them, including questions about whether they think the previous election, which Trump lost to former president Biden, was rigged against Trump—a conspiracy theory that's popular with Trump and many of his supporters, but for which there's no evidence.There was also a flurry of activity in Israel and the Gaza Strip, last minute negotiations between then-president Biden's representatives gaining additional oomph when Trump's incoming representatives added their heft to the effort, resulting in a long-pursued ceasefire agreement that, as of the day I'm recording this at least, still holds, a few weeks after it went into effect; hostages are still being exchanged, fighting has almost entirely halted between Israeli forces and Hamas fighters in Gaza, and while everyone involved is still holding their breath, worried that the whole thing could fall apart as previous efforts toward a lasting ceasefire have, negotiations about the second phase of the three-phase ceasefire plan started yesterday, and everything seems to be going mostly according to plan, thus far.That said, other aspects of the second Trump presidency have been less smooth and less celebrated—outside of the president's orbit, at least.There have been a flurry of firings and forced retirements amongst long-serving public officials and employees—many seemingly the result of those aforementioned loyalty tests. This has left gaps in many fundamental agencies, and while those conducting this purge of said agencies have claimed this is part of the plan, and that those who have left or been forced to leave are part of the alleged deep state that has it in for Trump, and who worked against him and his plans during his first presidency, and that these agencies, furthermore, have long been overstaffed, and staffed with people who aren't good at their jobs—so these purges will ultimately save the government money, and things will be restructured to work better, for some value of “better,” anyway.There have been outcries about this seeming gutting of the system, especially the regulatory system, from pretty much everyone else, national and international, with some analysts and Trump opponents calling this a coup in all but name; doing away with the systems that allow for accountability of those in charge, basically, and the very structures that allow democracy to happen in the country. And even short of that, we're seeing all sorts of issues related to those empty seats, and could soon see consequences as a result of the loss of generational knowledge in these agencies about how to do things; even fairly basic things.All of which has been accompanied by a wave of revenge firings and demotions, and threats of legal action and even the jailing of Trump opponents. In some cases this has included pulling security details from anyone who's spoken out against Trump or his policies in the past, including those who face persistent threats of violence, usually from Trump supporters.On the opposite side, those who have stuck by Trump, including those who were charged with crimes related to the January 6 incursion at the US Capitol Building, have been pardoned, given promotions, and at times publicly celebrated by the new administration. Some have been given cushy jobs and promotions for the well-connected amongst his supporters; Ken Howery the partner of venture capitalist and owner of government contractor Palantir, Peter Thield, and close ally of serial CEO and enthusiastic Trump supporter Elon Musk, was recently made ambassador to Denmark, for instance.Some of these moves have caused a fair bit of chaos, including a plane colliding with a military helicopter, which may have been the result of understaffing at the FAA, alongside an executive order that froze the funding of federal programs across the country.That executive order has been blocked by judges in some areas, and the Trump administration has since announced that they've rescinded the memo announcing that shutdown, but the initial impact was substantial, including the closure of regional Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid infrastructure, and the halting of government funded research and educational programs.Lots of people had their livelihoods threatened, lots worried they wouldn't be able to afford necessary medical procedures or be able to pay their bills, and many people worried this might cause the country to lose ground against competitors in terms of scientific and technological development, while also leading to some pretty widespread negative health outcomes—the government has also pulled health data, so information about disease spread and even pandemics is now inaccessible, further amplifying that latter concern.And that's just a very abbreviated, incomplete summary of some of the actions Trump's administration has taken in its first two weeks back in office; part of a desire on their part to hit the ground rolling and get rid of elements that might stand in their way as they fundamentally change the US system of government to better match their ambitions and priorities.What I'd like to talk about today, is a specific focus of this new administration—one that was a focus of Trump's previous administration, and to a certain degree Biden's administration too: that of US protectionism, and the use of tariffs against perceived enemies; but also, in Trump's case, at least, against long-time allies, as well.—On February 2 of 2025, Trump posted about tariffs on the twitter-clone he owns, Truth Social. And I'm going to quote the post in full, here, as I think it's illustrative of what he intends to do in this regard in the coming months.“The “Tariff Lobby,” headed by the Globalist, and always wrong, Wall Street Journal, is working hard to justify Countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and too many others to name, continue the decades long RIPOFF OF AMERICA, both with regard to TRADE, CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we're not going to be the “Stupid Country” any longer. MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS! Why should the United States lose TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIZING OTHER COUNTRIES, and why should these other countries pay a small fraction of the cost of what USA citizens pay for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, as an example? THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA! WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID. WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!”So there are several things happening there, probably the most fundamental of which is the claim that other countries, including the US's allies, like Canada and Mexico, are taking advantage of the US when it comes to trade. This post followed Trump's signature of an executive order that applied a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports, and a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports.A tariff is basically a tax on certain goods brought into a country from other countries.So the US might impose a tariff on Chinese cars in order to keep those cars from flooding US markets and competing with US- and European-made models. And that's what the US did under the first Trump, and then the Biden administration—it imposed a 100% border tax on electric vehicles from China, the theory being that these cars are underpriced because of how the Chinese economy works, because of how workers there are treated, and because the Chinese government subsidizes many of their industries, including the EV industry, so their cars are quite good and sold at low prices, but they got that way because they're competing unfairly, according to this argument. Chinese cars sold at their sticker price on the US market, then, might kill off US car companies, which is not something the US government wants.Thus, the price on Chinese EVs is effectively doubled on the US market, and that, on a practical level, kills that competition, giving US carmakers cover until they can up their game and compete with their foreign rivals.The usual theory behind imposing tariffs, then, if you're doing so for ostensible competitive reasons, at least, is that slapping an additional tax on such goods should allow local businesses to better compete against them, because that additional tax raises prices, and that means local offerings have a government-provided advantage. This can help level a perceptually imbalanced playing field, or it can rebalance things in favor of brands in your country.In reality, though, tariffs often, though not always, become a tax on customers, not on the companies they're meant to target.Chinese vehicles have had trouble coming to the US for other reasons beyond price, including a change in safety standards that would be regulatorily required, and a slew of advantages provided to US companies beyond the hobbling tariffs enforced on their foreign competition. But other goods come into the US market from all over the place, and when there's a tariff of say 10 or 25%, that tax is generally just tacked on to the sticker price on the US market, and US consumers thus pay more for something they might have otherwise bought more cheaply, sans tariffs.This creates an effective tax within various industries in the US economy, and it generally has an inflationary effect, as a consequence; things become more expensive, so the money people earn doesn't go as far.So the new Trump administration announced a new 10% tariff on all Chinese goods, and 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, though energy products like oil from Canada will only face a 10% tariff.China has already lobbed a bunch of counter-tariffs at the US over the past few administrations, and it suggested it would add more to the tally in response to this new flat tariff, and now Canada and Mexico are rattling the same sabers, saying they won't stand by while their neighbor, with the world's biggest economy, elbows them out, causing possibly substantial damage to their local businesses that export goods to the US.The Canadian government has said it will apply 25% tariffs on $155 billion of American goods, including things like orange juice and appliances, those tariffs phased in over the next three weeks. And the Mexican government has said they'll do similar things, without giving specific details, as of yet.That means US manufacturers, companies that make stuff that ends up being sold in Canada and Mexico, could soon see comparable tariffs on their goods sold in those markets. That, in turn, could lead to significant economic consequences for such companies, but also everyday people living in all the affected countries, because of that inflationary effect—that effective tax on all of these goods.So even without those counter-tariffs, these new tariffs from the Trump administration against Canada, Mexico, and China to are expected to cause some real damage to the US economy, and to normal Americans. The Tax Foundation has estimated that they'll shrink US economic output by .4% and increase taxes by $1.2 trillion between 2025 and 2034, which on a micro-scale represents an average household tax increase of about $830 in 2025, alone; an extra $830 out of pocket per household on average because of these punishments that are ostensibly aimed at other countries, to try to get them to do things Trump wants them to do.Most of that $1.2 trillion tax increase is just from the Mexico and Canada tariffs: $958 billion of it, in fact. And during his first term in office, Trump's tariffs imposed about $80 billion worth of new taxes on American households in a single year, from 2018 to 2019—which isn't the same as just hiking taxes, but it amounts to the same outcome; and when compared to straight-up tax hikes, this represents one of the largest tax increases in several decades.Biden kept most of Trump's tariffs from his first administration in place when he stepped into office, and Biden added some of his own, too: especially on strategically vital tech components like computer chips, and next-step product categories like electric vehicles. And the net-impact of these tariffs on the US economy is generally considered to be mostly negative, in terms of practical tax hikes and its inflationary impact, but also in terms of reduced economic activity and employment.Trade wars can sound pretty tough and often serve as nationalistic red meat when reported upon, but most economists consider them to be the legislative equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot; completely open, free trade comes with downsides, as well, including the potential for a nation like China to dump products at low prices in foreign markets, putting local manufacturers out of business, then raising their prices once they've soaked up all the oxygen.But trade conflicts often result in a lot of downsides for everyday, tax-paying citizens, have long-term negative effects on businesses, and can also stoke inflation, causing secondary and tertiary negative effects that are hard to tamp down, later.Knowing this, many analysts have speculated that Trump might be using these tariffs as a sort of shot across the bow, wanting to renegotiate all sorts of agreements with enemies and allies, alike, and using the madman theory of negotiation, trying to convince those on the other side of the eventual negotiation that he's not in his right mind and is willing to burn it all down, wounding himself and his country in order to take out those who he feels have wronged him, if he doesn't get what he wants.There's a chance this could work for him, and his many threats and implied threats have already led to a whole lot of cowtowing and cancelled lawsuits against him and his people, even from folks and entities that have previously been staunchly against Trump and everything he stands for.There's also a good chance that these other governments will see whatever it is he's demanding from them as a small price to pay to get back to something approaching normal relations with the US, and normal dealings with the US's economy.His demands so far, though, have mostly revolved around seeming specters; he's alleging insufficient efforts aimed at drug imports into the US, and that both Mexico and Canada are enabling all manners of money laundering and transnational crimes; allegations that both countries deny, but which probably aren't the point to begin with. These accusations are generally being seen as a means of forcing these tariffs through without the usual process, which would take a while and present the opportunity for government systems to derail or weaken them, which happened to some of the tariffs Trump wanted to hurl at other governments during his first administration.So those seeming rationales might be primarily justifications to force these tariffs through, and it could be that the tariffs are meant to be negotiating leverage first and foremost, going away as soon as he gets what he wants—whatever that actually is.That said, it's also been speculated that a manman-theory-style false threat that's seen to be a false threat—hardcore, arguably nonsensical tariffs against allies, for instance—may not serve their purpose, because everyone knows they're false. That may mean those on the other end of them, if they hold their ground and are willing to suffer a little, could make it out the other side without giving too much away, the US suffering more, and thus, the president eventually giving up, coming up with justification for shifting to a new strategy but mostly just trying to lower inflation levels he raised, and bring life back to a stock market that he collapsed.Either way, it looks like there's a pretty good chance a lot of established norms and folkways will be trampled over the next few years, possibly with good reason, if you support the ends of this administration, at least, though by some indications maybe because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how economics works at this scale, or maybe for different reasons entirely: part of that larger plan to disrupt and demolish aspects of the US system of governance, making way for replacements that are more to the current administration's liking.Note: after recording this episode, but before it went live, the Chinese tariffs went into effect, but the tariffs against Mexico and Canada (and those countries' counter-tariffs) were paused. More information: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/04/us/trump-tariffs-news#here-are-the-latest-developmentsShow Noteshttps://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1248065838/cheap-chinese-evs-us-buy-byd-electric-vehicleshttps://ustr.gov/usmcahttps://www.axios.com/2025/02/01/trump-cfpb-rohit-chopra-firedhttps://www.axios.com/2025/02/02/trump-netanyahu-gaza-ceasefire-hostage-dealhttps://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-impact-economy/https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/biden-blocks-us-steel-nippon-japanhttps://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113934450227067577https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/01/02/biden-blocks-nippon-us-steel-deal/https://www.axios.com/2025/01/03/nippon-steel-us-steel-sue-bidenhttps://restofworld.org/2024/china-tech-tariffs-which-countries-will-impose/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/02/us/trump-tariffshttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/business/trump-tariffs-china.htmlhttps://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-stretches-trade-law-boundaries-with-canada-mexico-china-tariffs-2025-02-02/https://www.theverge.com/news/600334/trump-us-tariffs-imported-semiconductors-chipshttps://www.uschamber.com/international/u-s-chamber-tariffs-are-not-the-answerhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c627nx42xelohttps://www.axios.com/2025/02/01/trump-canada-mexico-tariffshttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-02/mexico-pledges-retaliatory-tariffs-against-us-while-calling-for-cooperation?embedded-checkout=truehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-tariffs-trump-canada-mexico-what-to-know/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-25-percent-mexico-canada-trade-economy-84476fb2https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-02-02/from-cartels-to-terrorists-trump-imposes-a-new-paradigm-on-mexico-in-the-war-on-drugs.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/feb/02/canada-mexico-china-donald-trump-trade-tariffs-us-politics-livehttps://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/economic-and-fiscal-effects-trump-administrations-proposed-tarrifshttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/us/trump-freeze-blocked.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_electionhttps://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-news-ceasefire-hostages-02-01-2025-bb560151db1437d0b35ac1d568457a46https://www.axios.com/2025/02/01/trump-moves-missed-plane-crash-deihttps://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-dei-federal-workers-plane-crash-733303f2c808834f4cc4b30dfaf308a7https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-grants-pause-freeze-e5f512ae6f1212f621d5fa9bbec95e08 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Explore our C-Suite Outlook 2025 report with key insights from David Young of the Committee for Economic Development (CED).  The US debt stands at more than $36 trillion, and it's no surprise that US CEOs cite the US national debt and deficits as the biggest risk totheir business and business strategy in 2025. What other risks are the C-Suite monitoring, and how can they work with governments to mitigate them?  Join Steve Odland and guest David K. Young, president of the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy center of The Conference Board, to find out how the priorities of US CEOs differ from their global counterparts, what to expect with tariffs and immigration, and why energy and security are essential for US leadership on AI.     (01:04) Fiscal Health Concerns of CEOs (01:44) Regulation and Corporate Tax Rates (05:38) Protectionism and Trade Issues (09:25) Executive Orders and Immigration (13:52) Geopolitical Risks and Global Concerns (15:52) Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation (19:34) Energy, Climate, and Sustainability (24:39) Social Priorities and Final Thoughts   For more from The Conference Board:  C-Suite Outlook 2025: Seizing the Future  Committee for Economic Development (CED)  America in Perspective: Policy Priorities for 2025 

Send us a textTrade is all the rage these days. Or, at least, raging about trade is. Today, we unpack what trade and free trade are, and how to talk about it. We also address the abundance of lawyers in trade policy. Douglas Irwin is a professor of economics at Dartmouth College and the author of several books including Clashing Over Commerce and Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade.Want to explore more?Douglas Irwin, International Trade Agreements, in the Concise Encyclopedia of EconomicsSamuel Gregg on National Security and Industrial Policy, a Great Antidote podcast.Why Industrial Policy is (Almost) Always a Bad Idea (with Scott Sumner), an EconTalk podcast.Colin Grabow on the Jones Act 2: Treason and Cruises, a Great Antidote podcast.Jon Murphy, Does National Security Justify Tariffs? at Econlib Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Kori joins the goats to discuss the brave new world. (00:30) Initial Reactions to Trump 2.0 (02:40) Immigration Policies and Concerns (16:36) Globalization vs. Protectionism (25:14) The Future of AI and Job Displacement (48:41) The DEI Debate: Balancing Diversity and Meritocracy (59:44) The TikTok Ban Controversy (01:12:10) Elon Musk: A Divisive Figure (01:19:14) Geopolitical Musings: Greenland and Beyond (01:30:35) $TRUMP and $MELANIA (01:35:33) Market and Economic Concerns (01:53:19) 2028 Presidential Election Predictions

When this episode goes live four days from now, Donald Trump will have been sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, after having served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.Many countries around the world are closely watching to identify changes in US policy and assess their impact. China is one of those countries. As presidential candidate Donald Trump threatened to impose 60% tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the United States. He also proposed revoking China's Most Favored Nation trading status and banning China from buying US farmland. He pledged to curtail Chinese espionage and theft of intellectual property. On some occasions Trump praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and predicted that they would get along very well. In the past few months, Trump and Xi have been in communication through their representatives.What approach will Beijing take toward Trump's presidency this time around? Is China in a stronger or weaker position than it was in during Trump's first term? What is the likely trajectory of US-China relations in the coming four years?To discuss these questions, host Bonnie Glaser is joined by Dr. Evan Medeiros, who is the Penner Family Chair in Asia Studies in the School of Foreign Service and the Cling Family Distinguished Fellow in US-China Studies at Georgetown University. He served seven years in President Obama's NSC first as director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia, and then as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asia.  Timestamps[00:00] Start[02:00] Lessons Beijing Learned from Trump's First Term [04:11] Perceptions on the Balance of Economic Power [07:30] China's Reaction to American Tariffs[09:39] China Hurting the United States without Hurting Itself[11:48] Starting Anew with the Trump Administration [13:38] An Early US-China Meeting[16:46] An Inverse Bilateral Relationship [18:56] China Helping with the War in Ukraine[25:18] Chinese Use of Force Against Taiwan [29:22] US Alliances Under the Trump Administration[35:00] What worries Evan Medeiros in the US-China relationship? 

Replacing the income tax, protecting American workers, serving as a negotiating tool, reducing the national deficit, reducing national debt, and more. We're told that tariffs are going to do all sorts of great things. Mark Thornton sets the record straight and explains why tariffs are unequivocally a bad thing.Additional Resources"The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg" by Mark Thornton: Mises.org/U4_A"Ludwig von Mises on Trade, Human Development, and Human Progress" by Mark Thornton: Mises.org/U4_B "The Political Economy of Protectionism" by Thomas DiLorenzo: Mises.org/U4_C"Protectionism and Immigration Reform" by Ryan McMaken: Mises.org/U4_D"Protectionism Abroad and Socialism at Home" by Ron Paul: Mises.org/U4_E"Protectionism Is Not the Answer to the Canadian Fur Trade's Problems" by Daniella Bassi: Mises.org/U4_F"Mises on Protectionism and Immigration" by Matthew McCaffrey: Mises.org/U4_G"Herbert Spencer: Protectionism Is Aggressionism" by Gary Galles: Mises.org/U4_H"Protectionism Is Immoral, Unjust, and Corrupt" by James Bovard: Mises.org/U4_I"Review of Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression by Douglas A. Irwin" by David Howden (QJAE 18, no. 2 ): Mises.org/U4_J"Protectionism, War and the Southern Tradition" by Lew Rockwell (The Costs of War): Mises.org/U4_K"Protectionism: Origin and Effects" by Thomas DiLorenzo (Mises University 2010): Mises.org/U4_L"Free Trade vs. Protectionism" by Carmen Elena Dorobăț (Mises University 2024): Mises.org/U4_M"Free Trade vs. Protectionism" by Shawn Ritenour (Mises University 2022): Mises.org/U4_N"Free Trade vs. Protectionism" by Lucas M. Engelhardt (Mises University 2023): Mises.org/U4_O"Clarifying Economists Arguments about International Trade" by Bob Murphy (Human Action Podcast): Mises.org/U4_P"Do Trump Tariffs Make Sense" (The Bob Murphy Show): Mises.org/U4_Q"Here's why Trump thinks tariffs are good for the US — and what the experts say" by Aimee Picchi (CBS News): Mises.org/U4_RSubscribe to this monthly podcast at Mises.org/Unanimity.Music: “My Universe” ℗ 2006 Kate Higgins (katehiggins.com). Used with permission.

Why is there so much astounding financial prosperity in so many countries around the world today…yet some countries have relatively little? Well, one huge reason is the great collaborative stewardship of free trade…welcomed by some nations, closed off by others. Yet most folks in a place like America tend to take free trade for granted…or sometimes actually oppose it! And what about the Kingdom and how the Great Commission aligns with free trade principles? Join Kevin as we dive into the topic of the great collaborative stewardship of free trade! // Download this episode's Application & Action questions and PDF transcript at whitestone.org.

TELUS Calls Out Government's Protectionism: Hashtag Trending Highlights In this episode of Hashtag Trending, hosted by Jim Love, TELUS criticizes the Canadian government's decision impacting fair competition among telcos. We explore a study on how return-to-office mandates are causing talent loss and hiring challenges for companies. Lastly, OpenAI's ChatGPT now offers phone accessibility, providing a unique blend of advanced AI and retro charm. Tune in for these insights and more! 00:00 Introduction and Sponsor Message 00:33 TELUS vs. Canadian Government: A Telecom Battle 02:48 Return to Office Mandates: Talent Exodus 04:25 ChatGPT Goes Old School: Now on Your Phone 06:36 Conclusion and Contact Information

Valeri Vu, Founding Partner at Ansible Ventures, and Jeremy Au discussed: 1. Vietnam Likes Trump Win: Valerie analyzed the positive local sentiment towards Trump's recent U.S. presidential win in 2024. She highlighted the $100 billion trade surplus Vietnam holds with the U.S. which brings potential American tariff risks, with a potential Vietnamese counterproposal to balance the trade relationship by purchasing defense and technology goods, such as aircraf. Trump's hawkish stance on China indirectly benefits Vietnam by encouraging manufacturing shifts, but also brings challenges for maintaining stable trade relationships. Valerie highlighted Vietnam's “bamboo diplomacy,” referencing recent efforts by Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh to engage with both the U.S. and China. 2. China Factory Relocation: The discussion focused on Vietnam's growing role as a manufacturing hub, fueled by U.S. tariffs of up to 60% on Chinese goods. Valerie detailed how relocations, including consumer electronics factories, are concentrated in industrial parks in Bac Ninh (North) and Binh Duong (South), benefiting Vietnam's manufacturing share, which currently stands at 2–3% globally. However, challenges persist, such as workforce skill gaps, rising coal consumption, and environmental concerns like air pollution. Vietnam is targeting growth in high-tech sectors, such as AI and software, to diversify its economic base. She also predicted that domestic consumption in Vietnam, currently sluggish due to lingering effects of a real estate crisis, will recover in 2025 as the economy stabilizes. 3. Startup Protectionism & Opportunities: Valerie outlined how local startups struggle to compete with international e-commerce giants like Shopee, TikTok Shop, and Temu, which dominate Vietnam's market through aggressive pricing and logistics advantages. Local platforms such as Tiki and Sendo have seen their market shares eroded, a stark contrast to Indonesia, where protectionist policies like banning Temu have shielded domestic players. She highlighted the rise of Vietnamese diaspora founders, like Pham Nhat Vuong of Vingroup, who are returning to Vietnam with global experience to build competitive ventures. Valerie stressed the need for startups to go global to thrive, citing successful Vietnamese brands like Trung Nguyen Coffee. She noted that SMEs face significant challenges as global competition intensifies, but startups targeting cross-border opportunities, especially in Southeast Asia, show promise. === Valerie founded Ansible Ventures, a seed fund dedicated to Vietnam in 2022. Previously, she served as Vietnam Country Head for Venturra Capital, where she led over a dozen investments from 2020 to early 2022. From 2016 to 2019, she worked at Deloitte U.S. as a senior consultant where she advised hedge funds, private equity funds and other investment management clients. Valerie graduated magna cum laude in 2016 from Temple University's Fox School of Business with a major in accounting and is a Certified Public Accountant licensed in Pennsylvania. She also founded Career Opportunities in Vietnam (COVN), providing advice to aspiring professionals and co-hosted Forward Vietnam Podcast. === Watch, listen or read the full insight at www.bravesea.com/blog/ vietnam-likes-trump Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di www.bravesea.com/blog/ vietnam-likes-trump 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 www.bravesea.com/blog/ vietnam-likes-trump Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại www.bravesea.com/blog/ vietnam-likes-trump Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea

AP correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports Europe and UK economies are not re-bounding quick enough, experts say.

As the author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, the Cambridge University historian Gary Gerstle was one of first people to recognize the collapse of neoliberalism. But today, the real question is not about the death of neoliberalism, but what comes after it. And, of course, when I sat down with Gerstle, I began by asking him what the Trump victory tells us about what comes after neoliberalism.Gary Gerstle is Paul Mellon Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Cambridge. Gerstle received his BA from Brown University and his MA and PhD from Harvard University. He is the author, editor, and coeditor of more than ten books.  He is currently the Joy Foundation Fellow at the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, where he is working on a new book, Politics in Our Time: Authoritarian Peril and Democratic Hope in the Twenty-First Century.  He resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most pivoted men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's most pivotal broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the pivotal author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two cats, both called Pivot.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. TRANSCRIPT“It's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world.” -Gary GerstleAK: Hello everybody. As we try to make sense of the aftermath of the US election this week, there was an interesting headline today in the Financial Times. Donald Trump apparently has asked, and I'm quoting the F.T. here, the arch-protectionist Robert Lighthizer, to run U.S. trade policy. You never know with Trump, he may change his mind tomorrow. But nonetheless, it suggests, and it's not a great surprise, that protectionism will define the Trump, presidency or certainly the second Trump presidency. And it speaks of the structural shift in the nature of politics and economics in the United States, particularly given this Trump victory. One man who got this, I think before anyone else, is the Cambridge historian Gary Gerstle. He's been on the show a couple of times before. He's the author of a wonderful book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. It's a profound book. It's had an enormous impact on everybody. And I'm thrilled and honored that Gary is back on the show. This is the third time he's been on the show. Gary, is that important news? Have we formally come to the end now of the neoliberal order? GARY GERSTLE: I think we have, although there's an element of neoliberalism which may revive in the Trump administration. But if we think of a political order as ordering political life so that all participants in that order have to accept its ideological principles, we have moved out of that order. I think we've been out of it for some time. The critical election in this case was 2016, and the critical move that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders made in 2016, the two most dynamic presidential candidates in that year, was to break with the orthodoxy of free markets, the orthodoxy of globalization, the orthodoxy of a world without borders where everything was free to move and the market was supreme. And the only role of government in the state was to ensure as full access to markets as was possible in the belief that if governments got out of the way of a private capitalist economy, this would spur the greatest growth for the greatest number of people everywhere in the world. This was governing orthodoxy, really from the time of Reagan until 2016. Trump broke it. Sanders broke it. Very significant in this regard that when Biden came into office, he moderated some of the Trump tariffs but kept the tariffs on China substantially in place. So there's been continuity for some time, and now we're going to see an intensification of the protectionist regime. Protectionism used to be a dirty word in American politics. If you uttered that word, you were excluded from serious political discourse. There will be other terms that are used, fair trade, not just because protectionism has a negative connotation to it, but we are living in an era where governments assert the right to shape markets as they wish to in the interests of their nation. So, yes, we are living in a different era, although it must be said, and we may get into a discussion of this at some point, there are sectors of the Trump coalition that want to intensify deregulation in the domestic market, that want to rollback government. And so I expect in the new Trump administration, there is going to be tussles between the protectionists on the one hand and those who want to, at least domestically, restore free trade. And by that I mean the free operation of private capital without government regulation. That's an issue that bears watching.AK: Is that a contradiction though, Gary? Can one, in this post-neoliberal order, can governments be hostile to regulation, a la Elon Musk and his association with Trump, and also be in favor of tariffs? I mean, do the two—can the to go together, and is that the outline of this foggy new order coming into place in the second quarter of the 21st century?GARY GERSTLE: They can go together in the sense that they have historically in the past gone together in the United States. In the late 19th century, the US had very high tariffs against foreign goods. And domestically, it was trying to create as free a domestic market as possible. What was known as the period of laissez-faire domestically went along with a commitment to high tariffs and protection of American laissez-faire against what we might call global laissez-faire. So it has been tried. It did work at that time. But I think the Republican party and the constituencies behind Donald Trump are divided on this question. As you noted, Elon Musk represents one pole of this. He certainly wants protection against Chinese imports of electric cars and is probably going to get that because of all the assistance he gave Trump in this election. But domestically, he wants no government interfering with his right to conduct his capitalist enterprises as he sees fit. So that's going to be one wing. But there's another wing of the Republican Party under Trump that is much more serious about industrial policy that says we cannot leave the market to its own devices. It produces too many human casualties. It produces too many regions of America left behind, and that we must use the government to help those people left behind. We must structure free enterprise industry in a way that helps the ordinary working-class man. And I use the word “man” deliberately in this context. Interestingly, JD Vance, the vice president, embodies both these tendencies, sees, on the one hand, a creature of venture capital, Silicon Valley, close to the Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. On the other hand, he has talked explicitly, as in his vice-presidential acceptance speech, about putting Main Street over Wall Street. And if he's serious about putting Main Street over Wall Street, that's going to involve a lot of government intervention to displace the privileged position that finance and venture capital now has in the American economy.AK: Gary, you're a historian, one of the best around, you're deeply versed in the past, you bring up Vance. He presents himself as being original, even has a beard. But I wonder whether his—I don't know what you would call it—a Catholic or Christian socialism, or at least a concern with the working class. Is it in any way new, for you, historically? I mean, it certainly exists in Europe, and there must be analogies also in American history with him.GARY GERSTLE: Well, if he is a convert to Catholicism, I don't know how well-versed he is in the papal doctrines of years past. Or decades. Or even centuries passed. But there was a serious movement within the Catholic Church in the late 19th and early 20th century to humanize capitalism, to declare that free market capitalism produced too many human casualties. Too many ordinary Catholic workers and workers who are not Catholic were hurt by unemployment, poverty, being thrown out of work in the troughs of business cycles, having no social welfare to fall back on, as a result of injury or misfortune in life. And so there was a profound movement within Catholic churches, in the United States, and in Europe and other parts of the world as well, to humanize capitalism. Whether this very once important Catholic tradition is an active influence on Vance, I don't know, because he's a recent convert to Catholicism, and I don't know how deeply has imbibed its history or its doctrine. But there is a rich tradition there. And it's possible that this is one of the sources that he is drawing on to shape his contemporary politics.AK: We were talking before we ran live, Gary, I said to you, and I think you agreed, that this use of the word "fascism" to describe Trump isn't always particularly helpful. It reflects a general hysteria amongst progressives. But I wonder in this context, given the way in which European Catholicism flirted, sometimes quite openly, with fascism, whether the F-word actually makes a little more sense. Because after all, fascism, after the First World War, was a movement in the name of the people, which was very critical of the capitalism of that age and of the international market. So, when we use the word fascism now, could it have some value in that context as a kind of a socioeconomic critique of capitalism?GARY GERSTLE: You mean fascism offering a socioeconomic critique of U.S. capitalism?AK: Yes. For better or worse.GARY GERSTLE: I'm reluctant to deploy the term fascism, since I think most people who enter the conversation or who hear that word in the United States don't really know what it means, and that's partly the consequence of historians debating its meaning as long as they have, and also suggesting that fascism takes different forms at different times and in different places. I prefer the term authoritarianism. I think that tendency is clearly there and one can connect that to certain traditions within the church. The United States once had a intense anti-Catholic political tradition. It was unimaginable in the 19th century. AK: Yeah, it drove the KKK. I mean, that was the Klan hated the Catholics probably more than they hated the Jews.GARY GERSTLE: It drove the Klan. And the notion in the 19th century—I'm not remembering now whether there are 5 or 6 Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court—but the notion in the 19th century that 5 or 6 Catholics would be the chief custodians and interpreters of America's most sacred doctrine and document the Constitution was simply unthinkable. It could never have happened. There was a Catholic seat. As for a long time, there was a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court, but understood that this would be carefully cordoned off and limited and that, when push came to shove, Protestants had to be in charge of interpreting America's most sacred doctrine. And the charge against Catholics was that they were not democratic, that they vested ultimate power in God and through an honest messenger on Earth, who was the pope. John F. Kennedy, in 1960, became the first Catholic president of the United States. Biden is only the second. Vance is the first Catholic vice president. Before in the campaign that Kennedy was running in 1960, he had to go in front of thousands of Protestant ministers who had gathered in Houston so he could persuade them that if he became president, he would not be handing America over to the pope, who was seen as an authoritarian figure. So for a long time, Catholicism was seen as a carrier of authoritarianism, of a kind of executive power that should not be limited by a human or secular force. And this promoted, in the United States, intense anti-Catholic feeling, which took the country probably 200 years to conquer. Conquered it was, so the issue of so many Catholics on the Supreme Court is not an issue. Biden's Catholicism is not an issue. Vance's Catholicism is not an issue. But Vance himself has said, talking about his conversion, that of his granny—I forget the term he uses to describe his granny—were alive today, she would not be able to accept his conversion because she was so deeply Protestant, so evangelical, so—AK: A classic West Virginian evangelical. So for me, the other contradiction here is that Vance is unashamedly nationalist, unashamedly critical of globalization. And yet, by embracing Catholicism, which is the most international of face, I don't quite understand what that suggests about him, or Catholicism, or even history, that that these odd things happen.GARY GERSTLE: Well, one thing one can say in history is that odd things happen and odd couples get together. I don't know myself how fully Vance understands his Catholicism. I believe Peter Thiel led him to this. Vance is still a young man and has gone through a lot of conversions for a young man. He was—AK: Well, he's a conversion expert. That's the narrative of his life, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Yes. Yes. And he began as being a severe anti-Trumper, almost a Never-Trumper. Then he converted to Trumpism. Then he converted from Protestant to Catholicism. So a lot of major changes in his life. So, the question you just posed is a fascinating one. Does he understand that the church is a catholic church, meaning small c catholic in this case, that it's open to everyone in the world? Does he really understand that? But I would extend my puzzle about religion beyond Catholicism to ask, for all the evangelical supporters of Trump: where is Jesus's message of peace and love? Where did that go? So there are puzzles about the shape of Christian religion in America. And there's no doubt that for its most devout supporters in the United States that has taken a very hard nationalist turn. And this is true among Protestants, and it is true among many Catholics. And so, I think the question that you posed may be one that no one has really confronted Vance with.“What we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine.” -Gary GerstleAK: And I would extend that, Gary. I think that the most persistent and credible critics of Trump also come from the religious community. Peter Wehner, for example, former—I don't know if you're familiar with his work. He writes a lot for the Times and The Atlantic. Very religious man, is horrified—worked in the Bush and the Reagan administrations. Let's go back to—I was looking at the cover of the book, and obviously authors don't pick the covers of their books—GARY GERSTLE: I did. I picked this.AK: Okay. Well, when you look at the—GARY GERSTLE: This is this is not the original cover.AK: Right, so, the book I'm looking at, and for people just listening, I'm going to describe. The dominant picture is of the Berlin Wall being knocked down in the evening of November 1989. It's odd, Gary, isn't it, that...for the rise and fall of the neoliberal order, which is an economic order in a free market era, you should have chosen the image of a political event, which, of course, Fukuyama so famously described as the end of history. And I guess, for you as an economic historian who is also deeply interested and aware of politics, is the challenge and opportunity to always try to disentangle the economics and politics of all this? Or are they so entangled that they're actually impossible to disentangle, to separate?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think sometimes you need to disentangle them, sometimes they move in different directions, and sometimes they move in the same direction. I think to understand the triumph of the neoliberal order, we have to see that politics and economics move in tandem with each other. What makes possible the neoliberal triumph of the 90s is the fall of communism between 1989 and 1991. And no picture embodies that better than the taking down of the Berlin Wall. And that connotes a message of freedom and escape from Soviet and communist tyranny. But the other message there is that tearing down of those walls opens the world to capitalist penetration to a degree that had not been available to the capitalist world since prior to World War One, prior to the war, and most importantly, to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. And where communists came to power everywhere, they either completely excluded or sharply curtailed the ability of capitalist business to operate within their borders. Their message was expropriate private property, which meant expropriate all corporate property. Give it over to the state, let the state manage it in the interest of the proletariat. This was an extraordinary dream that turned into an awful tyrannical outcome. But it animated the world, as few other ideas did in the 20th century, and proposed a very, very serious challenge to capitalist prerogative, to capitalist industry, to free markets. And so the collapse of communism, which is both the collapse of a state—a communist state, the Soviet Union—but perhaps more importantly, the collapse of the belief that any governments could structure the private economy in ways that would be beneficial to humankind. It's what opened the way in the 1990s to the neoliberal triumph. And it's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world. And in the long term—we're in the mid-term—that was going to create inequalities, vulnerabilities to the global financial and economic systems, that were going to bring the global economy down and set off a radically different form of politics than the world had seen for some time. And we're still living through that radically different form of politics set off by the financial crash of 2008/2009, which, in my way of thinking, was a product of untrammeled capitalism conquering the world in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's and communism's collapse.AK: Yeah, and that's the other thing, isn't it, Garry? I mean, it goes without saying that the bringing down of the war fundamentally changed the old Soviet economy, the East European economies, Poland, Hungary, eastern part of Germany. But what no one—I think very, very few people imagined in '89 was that perhaps the biggest consequence of this capitalist penetration wasn't in Warsaw or Moscow or the eastern part of Berlin, but back in West Virginia with guys like JD Vance. How did the bringing down of the wall change America, or at least the American economy? I've never really quite understood that.GARY GERSTLE: Through the mass exporting of manufacturing to other countries that—AK: Wasn't that before? Wasn't that also taking place before '89, or did it happen particularly in the '90s?GARY GERSTLE: It began before 1989. It began during the Great Recession of the 1970s, where the first districts of manufacturing in the U.S., places like Buffalo, New York steelmaking center, began to get hollowed out. But it dramatically intensified in the 1990s, and this had to do with China permitting itself to be a part of this global free market. And China was opened to capitalist penetration from the United States and Europe. And what you saw in that decade was a massive shift of manufacturing to China, a shift that even intensified in the first decade of the 21st century with the admission of China in 2001 to the World Trade Organization. So China was a big factor. Also, the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which rendered the northern half of the Western Hemisphere one common market, like the European Common Market. So, enormous flight of jobs to places like Mexico. And the labor costs in places like China and Mexico, and then East Asia already leaving Japan for Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, parts of the South Asian subcontinent. The flight of jobs there became so massive, and the labor costs there were so cheap, that American industry couldn't compete. And what you begin to see is the hollowing out of American industry, American manufacturing, and whole districts of America just beginning to rot. And no new industries or no new economies taking the place of the industries and the jobs that had left. And this America was being ignored, largely in the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century, in part because the ideology of neoliberalism said, we understand that this global free market is going to increase inequality in the world, it's going to increase the distance between rich and poor, but the distance between rich and poor is okay because all boats will rise. All people will benefit. This is not just an American story, this is also the story of other parts of the North Atlantic economy. Britain certainly, Germany was a partial exception, France, other places, and this was the ideology...growth would benefit everyone, and this was not the case. It was a fallacy. But the ideology was so strong that it held together until the financial crash of 2008/2009. After that crash, it became impossible to make the point that all boats were rising under the neoliberal regime. And this is when the forgotten Americans and the forgotten Brits of the northern part of the of Great Britain. This is when they began to make their voices heard. This is when they began to strike a very different note in politics. And this is where Donald Trump had his beginnings with these forgotten, angry people who felt ignored, left behind, and were suffering greatly, because by the early decades of the 21st century, it wasn't just jobs that were gone, but it was healthy marital life, divorce rates rising, rampant drug use. Two Cambridge economists wrote a book called Depths of Despair.AK: Yeah, that book comes up in almost every conversation. I once went down to Princeton to interview Angus Deaton. Like your book, it's become a classic. So let's fast forward, Gary, to the last election. I know you're writing a book now about politics in our time of authoritarianism, and you're scratching your head and asking whether the election last week was a normal or an apocryphal one, one that's just different or historical. And I wonder, in that sense, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to have been two elections simultaneously. On the one hand, it was very normal, from the Democrats' point of view, who treated America as if it was normal. Harris behaves as if she was just another Democratic candidate. And, of course, Trump, who didn't. My interpretation, maybe it's a bit unfair, is that it's the progressives. It's certainly the coastal elites who have become, implicitly at least, the defenders of the old neoliberal order. For them, it kind of works. It's not ideal, but it works and they can't imagine anything else. And it's the conservatives who have attacked it, the so-called conservatives. Is there any truth to that in the last election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think the Democrats are certainly seen by vast sectors of the population as being the defenders of an old order, of established institutions controlling the media, although I think that's less and less true because the legacy media has less and less influence and shows like yours, podcasting and rogue Fox Television and all kinds of other outlets, are increasingly influential. But yes, the Democrats are seen as a party of the establishment. They are seen as the party of the educated elite. And one of the factors that determines who votes for who now is now deeply educational in the sense of, what is your level of educational achievement? If you are college educated, you're much more likely to vote Democratic, regardless of your income. And if you're high school educated or less, you're much more likely to vote Republican. I don't think it's fair to say that the Democrats are the last protectors of the neoliberal order, because Biden broke with the neoliberal order in major, consequential ways. If the defining characteristic of the neoliberal order is to free the market from constraints and to use the state only to free up market forces—this was true, to a large extent, of Obama and of Clinton—Biden broke with that, and he did it in alliance with Bernie Sanders, set of task forces they set up in 2020 to design a new administration. And his major pieces of legislation, reshoring CHIPS manufacture, the biggest investment in clean energy in the country's history. $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the biggest infrastructure project since the interstate highway system of the '50s, and arguably since Roosevelt's fabled New Deal. These are all about industrial policy. These are all about the government using its power and resources to direct industry in a certain way so that it will increase general happiness, general welfare, general employment. So this represents a profound change from what had come before. And in that way, the Biden administration can't be seen as the last defenders.“The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims?”AK: And let me jump in here, Gary, there's another really important question. There was a very interesting piece, I'm sure you saw it, by Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker about Bidenomics and its achievements. You talked about the New Deal, the massive amount of investments—it was post COVID, they took advantage of the historical crisis. Trillions of dollars have been invested in new technologies. Is Bidenomics new in any way? Or is it basically just a return to the economics, or the political economy, of FDR?GARY GERSTLE: Well, it certainly draws inspiration from FDR, because at the core of the New Deal was the conviction that you could use government to direct industry to positive uses that would benefit not just the corporations, but the population as a whole. But there was nothing like the Green Energy Project in the New Deal. The New Deal, except for hydroelectric projects, was primarily about prospering on a cheap fossil fuel economy. The New Deal also was very comfortable with accepting prevailing gender and race conceptions of the proper place of women and African Americans in American life in a way that is unacceptable to Bidenomics. So there are redirections under Bidenomics in ways that modify the New Deal inspiration. But at its core, Bidenomics is modeled on the New Deal conviction that you need a strong federal government to point industry in the right direction. And so in that sense, there's a fundamental similarity in those two progressive projects. And I think people in the Biden administration have been quite conscious about that. Now, the particular challenges are different. The world economy is different. The climate crisis is upon us. So, it is going to take different forms, have different outcomes. But the inspiration clearly comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.AK: Well, let's go over to the other side and Trump. You scratching your head and figuring out whether this is unusual. And of course, it's the second time he's won an election. This time around, he seems to be overtly hostile to the state. He's associated with Musk, who's promised to essentially decimate the state. In historical terms, Gary, is there anything unusual about this? I mean, certainly the opponents of FDR were also very hostile to this emergent American state. As a historian, do you see this as something new, the pleasure in essentially blowing the state up, or at least the promise of blowing the state up?GARY GERSTLE: That impulse is not new. There have been members of the Republican party who have been talking this language since the New Deal arrived in America in the 1930s and '40s during the '50s and '60s and early '70s, they were marginal in American politics. And then with the neoliberal order coming into being in the '70s and with Reagan as president, their voice has gained enormous traction. One of Reagan's key advisors in the 1980s and 1990s, one of his favorite lines was, “I want to shrink the size of the federal government until we can drown it in the bathtub.” It's a wonderful image and metaphor, and captures the intensity with which conservative Republicans have wanted to eliminate the strong centralized state. But they have not been able to do it to a degree that makes that have satisfied them. It turns out that Americans, for all their possible ideological opposition to big government like big parts of it, like Social Security, like Medicare, like a strong military establishment that's gonna protect the country, like clean air, clean water. So it's proved much more difficult for this edifice to be taken down than the Reaganites had imagined it would be. So, the advocates have become more radical because of decades of frustration. And what we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine, as the abortion issue signifies. What they have in mind is corporate freedom. The freedom of Elon Musk's companies to do whatever they want to do. The freedom of the social media companies to do whatever they want to do. The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims? Peter Thiel has said, very forthrightly, that democracy no longer works as a system, and that America has to consider other systems in order to have the kind of prosperity and freedom it wants. And one thing that bears watching with this new Trump administration is how many supporters the Peter Thiel's and the Elon Musk's are going to have to be free to tear down the edifice and the institutions of the federal government and pursuit of a goal of a reconfigured, and what I would call rogue, laissez-faire. This is something to watch.AK: But Gary, I take your point. I mean, Thiel's been, on the West Coast, always been a convenient punchbag for the left for years now, I punched him many times myself. I wanted to. But all this seems to be just the wet dream of neoliberals. So you have Musk and Thiel doing away with government. Huge corporations, no laws. This is the neoliberal wet dream, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Well, partly it is. But neoliberalism always depended on a structure of law enforced by government that was necessary to allow free markets to operate in a truly free and transparent manner. In other words, you needed elements of a strong government to perfect markets, that markets were not perfect if they were left to their own devices. And one of the dangers of the Elon Musk phase of the Trump administration is that this edifice of law on which corporations and capitalism thrives will be damaged in the pursuit of a radical libertarianism. Now, there may very well be a sense that cooler heads prevail in the Trump administration, and that this scenario will not come to fruition. But one certainly has to be aware that this is one of the possible outcomes of a Trump administration. I should also say that there's another very important constituency in the Republican party that wants to continue, not dismantle, what Biden has done with industrial policies. This is the other half of JD Vance's brain. This is Tom Cotton. This is Marco Rubio, this is Josh Hawley, senator from Missouri. And they want to actively use the government to regulate industry in the public interest. And there's a very interesting intellectual convergence going on between left of center and right of center intellectuals and policymakers who are converging on the importance of having an industrial policy, because if Elon Musk is given his way, how is the abandoned heartland going to come back?AK: It's cheering me up, Gary, because what you're suggesting is that this is a fairly normal moment. You've got different wings of the Republican Party. You've got the Cottons and the Rubios, who were certainly not revolutionary. Why should we believe that this is a special moment then?GARY GERSTLE: January 6th, 2021. That's the reason. Trump remains the only president in American history to authorize an attack on the very seat of American democracy. That being: Congress sitting in the Capitol. And once he authorized the attack, he waited for three hours hoping that his attackers and his mob would conquer this building and compel the legislators inside to do—AK: And I take your perspective. I'm the last person to defend that. But we're talking about 2024 and not 2021. He won the election fairly. No one's debating that. So, why is 2024 a special election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, here's the key. Well, maybe it's a special election in two ways. It may signify the reconfiguration of a genuinely populist Republican party around the needs of ordinary working-class Americans. And we should say, in this regard, that Trump has brought into his coalition significant numbers of Latinos, young blacks. It has the beginning of a look of a multiracial coalition that the Democrats once had, but now appear to be losing. So it may be an epochal moment in that regard. The other way in which it may be an epochal moment is: what if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way? That's how January 6th, 2021, still matters. I'm not saying he's going to do that, but I think we have to understand that that is a possibility, especially since he has shown no remorse for the outcome of the last election. If I read into your comments, I hear you saying: he won this time. He doesn't have to worry about losing. But Trump is always worried about losing. And he is a man who doesn't really know the Constitution, and the parts that he knows and understands he doesn't especially like, because his dream, along with Elon Musk's dream, and this is one reason why I think they are melding so tightly, at the apex of American government should be unbounded executive power. This is not how the country was set up. And as Congress and as the courts begin to push back, will he accept those limits, that there must be bounds on executive power? Or will he try and break through them? I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's something that we have to be concerned about.AK: I wonder, again, wearing your historical cap you're always doing, the more you talk, the more Trump and Trump's Republican party is Nixonian. This obsession with not being responsible for the law. The broadening of the Republican party. Certainly the Republican party under Nixon was less singularly white than it became later. Isn't, in some ways, Trump just a return to Nixon? And secondly, you're talking about the law and Trump ransacking the law. But on the other hand, everything he always does is always backed up by the law. So, he has a love hate relationship with the law himself. He could never have accomplished anything he's done without hiring all these expensive lawyers. I don't know if you saw the movie this year, The Apprentice, which is built on his relationship with what's with Roy Cohn, of course, who schooled him in American politics, who was McCarthy's lawyer. So, again, I'm not trying to defend Trump, but my point is: what's different here?GARY GERSTLE: Well, a key difference from Nixon is that when push came to shove, Nixon submitted to the rule of law, and Trump did not. Nixon did not unleash his people on Congress when a group of senators came to him and said you're going to be impeached if you stay in office, you should resign. He resigned. So the '70s was a moment of enormous assertion of the power of Congress, and assertion of the power and authority of the Constitution. That is not the story of Donald Trump. The story of Donald Trump is the story of the Constitution being pushed to the side. If you ask, is there anything new about Americans and politicians trying to manipulate the law in their favor? There's nothing new about that. And Trump, having made his fortune in New York real estate, knows there's no such thing as perfect markets, knows that judges can be bought and corrupted. And so, he has very little regard for the authority of courts. Everything's a transaction. Everything can be bought and sold. So, he understands that, and he has used the law to his advantage when he can. But let me bring you back to his first inauguration speech. There was no mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution in what he had to say that day. I think we'd be hard pressed to find another inaugural speech that makes no reference to the sacred documents having to do with the founding of the American Republic. And so I think in that way, he is something new and represents, potentially, a different kind of threat. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's certainly possible. And let me add one other element that we have to consider, because I'm suggesting that he has a fondness for forms of authoritarian rule, and we have to recognize that hard rights are on the march everywhere in the world right now. The social democratic government of Germany has just fallen. Britain may soon be alone in terms of having a left-center party in control and upholding the values of liberal democracy. The world is in a grip of an authoritarian surge. That is not an American phenomenon. It is an international phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon I understand well enough, but if we're to understand the kind of strongman tendencies that Trump is exhibiting, the appeal of the strongman tendencies to so many Americans, we have to understand the international context in which this is occurring. And these movements in these different countries are fully aware of each other. They draw strength from each other's victories, and they get despairing from each other's defeats. So this is an international movement and an international project, and it's important, in that regard, to set Trump in that historical context.AK: Final question, Gary, there's so much here, we'll have to get you back on the show again in the new year. There's certainly, as you suggested, a great deal of vitality to conservatives, to the Cottons, the JD Vances, the Steve Bannons of the world. But what about on the left? We talked earlier, you sort of pushed back a little bit on the idea that the progressive elites aren't defenders of the neoliberal order, but you kind of acknowledged there may be a little bit of truth in that. In response to this new conservatism, which, as you suggested, is in some ways quite old, what can and should progressives do, rather than just falling back on Bidenomics and reliance on a new deal—which isn't going to happen now given that they had the opportunity in the COVID crisis to spend lots of money, which didn't have any impact on this election, for better or worse. Is there a need to re-architect the progressive politics in our new age, the age of AI, a high-tech age? Or do we simply allow the Bernie Sanders of the world to fall back on 20th-century progressive ideas?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I'm not sure where AI is taking us. AI may be taking us out of democracy altogether. I think one of—AK: You're not giving it any chance, if that's the case.“What if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way?”GARY GERSTLE: Well, there are different versions of AI that will be coming. But the state of the world right now suggests that democracy is on the defensive, and authoritarianism is is on the march. Those who predict the death of democracy have been wrong in the past. So I'm not predicting it here, but we have to understand that there are elements of life, technology, power in in private hands today, that make democracy much harder to do effectively. And so, this is a period of reflection that groups who care about democracy at all points on the political spectrum have to be thinking very seriously about. As for the here and now, and politicians don't think in terms of 10 or 20 years—or you have to be a leader in China, where you can think in terms of 10 or 20-year projects, because you never have to face any election and being tossed out of office—but in the here and now, I think what Democrats have to be very aware of, that the party that they thought they were is the party that the Republican Party has become, or is becoming: a multiracial, working-class party. And if the Democrats are to flourish—and in that regard, it's very significant—AK: It's astonishing, really.GARY GERSTLE: It is astonishing. And it's important to to note that Trump is the first Republican nominee for president since George W. Bush in 2004 to get a majority of votes. And the only person to do it before him in the last 30 years was his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988. Kamala Harris came within 200,000 votes of becoming president of the United States. That's not well enough understood yet. But if 200,000 votes had changed in three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would be the president elect of the United States. However, she would have been the president elect while losing the popular vote. And one has to go very far back in history to find the Democrats being the beneficiaries of the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. And I think the fact that they lost the popular vote for only the third time in the last 50 years, maybe? I mean, when they elected someone...has to suggest that they have to do some serious thinking about how to reclaim this. Now, Bernie Sanders is coming out and saying, they should have gotten me on the public stage rather than Liz Cheney, that going after suburban Republican women was the wrong route. You should have stuck with me. We had a left/center alliance that worked in 2020. We could have done it again. But that's not my reading of the situation. My reading of the situation is that Bernie-style politics is distinctly less popular in 2024 than it was in 2020. The Democrats have to figure that out, and they have to figure out what they have to do in order to reclaim majorities in American life. And in order to do that, I think their economic programs are actually on the right track, in that respect, under the Biden administration. I think they probably have to rethink some of their cultural policies. There were three issues in this election. The economy was number one. The immigration issue was number two. And then, the trans issue was number three. The Republicans ran an estimated 30,000 ads declaring that the Democratic party was going to take your children away by turning them from boys to girls or girls to boys. The Democratic party has to do some hard thinking about how to have a progressive policy on immigration and how to have a progressive policy on issues of trans matters without losing a majority of the American people, who clearly are, at this moment, not with them on those important issues.AK: It's an astonishing moment, Gary. And I'm not sure whether it's a revolutionary moment or just surreal.GARY GERSTLE: Well, you've been pressing me, on a number of occasions, as to whether this is just the normal course of American politics, and if we look in that direction, the place to look for normality is...incumbents always do badly in high-inflationary times. And Ford and Carter lost in the 1970s. Every incumbent during COVID and during the inflationary period in Europe seems to have lost a recent election. The most normal course of politics is to say, this is an exceptional moment having to do with the enormity of COVID and what was required to shut down the economy, saved people, and then getting started up again, and we will see something more normal, the Democrats will be back to what they normally do, in 2028. That's a possibility. I think the more plausible possibility is that we are in the midst of some pretty profound electoral realignment that is giving rise to a different kind of political order. And the Democrats have to figure out if that political order is going to be under their direction, what they have to do to pull that off. AK: And maybe rather than the neoliberal order, we're talking about, what, a neo-authoritarian order? Is that—GARY GERSTLE: Well, the Trump forces are maybe neo-authoritarian, but we don't have a name for it. Pete Buttigieg—AK: Well, that's why we got you on the show, Gary. Don't you have a name for it?GARY GERSTLE: No. You know—AK: We're relying on you. I hope it's going to be in your next book.GARY GERSTLE: Well, I have till January 20th, 2025, to come up with the name. Pete Buttigieg called it the Big Deal rather than the New Deal. I don't think that cuts it. And there's some other pundits who are arguing about building from the middle out. That doesn't cut it.AK: That sounds terrible. That sounds like—GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's—AK: Designing political parties by committee. It's like an American car.GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's problem. You can't name, effectively, in a positive way, what he's done. One thing that's going to happen—and this may be a sign that things will continue from Biden to Trump, in terms of industrial policy. Do you have any doubt that Trump is going to plaster his name on every computer chips plant, every battery factory? Trump brought this to you, he's got to be there for every opening. He's not going to miss a beat. He'll see this as a grand publicity tour. I think there's a good chance he will take credit for what Biden has started, and that's going to upset a lot of us. But it may also signify that he may be loath to abandon many of these industrial policies that Biden has put in place, especially since the Biden administration was very clever in putting most of these plants, and chip plants, and battery plants, in deep red Republican districts.AK: Well, Gary, I know you're not particularly cheerful. I don't suppose most of our audience are, but you actually cheered me up. I think things are a little bit more normal than some people think. But we will get you back on the show after January—what did you say—January 25th, when you'll have a word to describe the New World Order?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I said after January 20th, 2025, you can expect me to have a name. I probably should—AK: Gary, now, we'll have you back on the show. If you don't have a name, I'm going to report you to Trump.GARY GERSTLE: You'll have to bury me.AK: Yeah. Okay. Well, we're not burying you. We need you, Gary Gerstle, author of Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, a man who makes sense of our present with historical perspective. Gary, as always, a pleasure. Keep well and keep safe. And we'll talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.GERSTLE: Thank you. A pleasure talking with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

When it comes to trade, what does it mean? Ford's been warning leading up to the U.S election. What does it look like for us working with the Trump government? Host Alex Pierson speaks with Flavio Volpe, President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode, Tom sits down with Stephen Bonnell, also known as Destiny, for a deep dive into the current political landscape and the challenges we face as a society. Bonnell tackles the rampant misinformation in media and its impact on public perception, the political divide exacerbated by social media, and the controversial actions of big political figures such as Donald Trump. Together, they discuss Trump's presidency, exploring his beliefs, policies, and the economic consequences of his decisions. Bonnell also highlights the importance of American values—liberalism, capitalism, and free enterprise—and how they shape our nation. Tom and Stephen don't shy away from the tough topics. They debate the efficacy of economic strategies like tariffs and government subsidies, the role of leadership in fostering or hindering progress, and the complex nature of truth in a highly polarized media environment. From the need for onshoring in defense manufacturing to the feasibility of taxing unrealized gains, this episode covers a wide array of crucial issues. SHOWNOTES 00:00 Focus on strengths, delegate weaknesses for success. 07:09 Good intuition doesn't equal effective advice. 10:25 Foundational moral beliefs guide political applications. 18:34 Autocracies ignore disinformation; democracies require truth. 21:07 Misinformation fuels unfounded beliefs and actions. 29:55 Fear of censorship outweighs misinformation's potential harm. 34:54 Einsteinian physics isn't objective truth; approximations dominate. 38:44 Proving Trump's deceit would change my perspective. 42:21 Mind reading Trump reveals legitimate coup attempt. 49:24 Human mind's architecture limits problem escape. 58:02 Protectionism criticism; strategic unpredictability as tactic. CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS Range Rover: Explore the Range Rover Sport at  https://landroverUSA.com Huel: Try Huel with 15% OFF today using code IMPACT at https://huel.com/impact. Netsuite: Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at https://netsuite.com/theory Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Design.com: Ready to transform your brand? Head to https://design.com/impacttheory and get up to 88% off. Betterhelp: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/impacttheory and get 10% off your first month. FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here. If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. LISTEN AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/impacttheory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Protectionist measures like tariffs often harm the very firms and people they're supposed to help. Paul Best explains in a new piece in Free Society. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Commodities sit at the heart of global trade and as such are at the center of the rise of protectionism. After a long period of globalization and ever freer trade, there is a perceptible and growing shift back to mercantilism and protectionism. This is driven by great-power competition with the energy transition being a key driver. Tariffs, sanctions and direct market intervention are ever more commonplace. To discuss this trend, its causes and its impact on our sector is Alex Tuckett, Head of Economics at CRU, the independent commodity analytics, consulting and pricing agency. 

Listen for the latest from Bloomberg NewsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The political zeitgeist is to embrace protectionism, leading some who support free trade to embrace open borders. However, as Murray Rothbard explained, people and societies are complex entities and what may work for trade does not work for open immigration.Original article: Tariffs, Protectionism, and Why Borders Matter

Democrats and Republicans have taken a protectionist turn on trade policy over the past few years. They say it's to protect national security, but that argument doesn't always hold up. Just look at this week's announcement from vice-president Kamala Harris that she doesn't support the purchase of US Steel by Japan's Nippon Steel. The FT's economics editor, Sam Fleming, and Washington bureau chief, James Politi, join this week's Swamp Notes to explain why both parties are leaning into “Made in America”.Mentioned in this podcast:How national security has transformed economic policyJoe Biden set to block Nippon Steel's takeover of US SteelSign up for the FT's Swamp Notes newsletter hereRegister for our live subscriber webinar now at ft.com/uswebinarSwamp Notes is produced by Ethan Plotkin, Sonja Hutson, Lauren Fedor and Marc Filippino. Topher Forhecz is the FT's executive producer. The FT's global head of audio is Cheryl Brumley. Special thanks to Pierre Nicholson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

PREVIEW: TARIFFS: TRUMP: HARRIS Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution regarding how both major candidates are deceiving themselves, if not the American consumer, on the fact that protectionism raises prices for everyone except the foreign importer Trump and Harris assert is being contained. More later. 1943 Detroit

New polling from the Cato Institute asks Americans to weigh their preferences for Buy American policies against the very real likelihood that protectionism will hit them in their pocketbooks. Scott Lincicome and Emily Ekins detail the results. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

PREVIEW: #PERU: #PRC: #TARIFFS: Conversation with colleague Mary Anastasia O'Grady re: the building of the Chancay deep water port in Peru and the protectionism of both the Trump and Biden policies. More tonight. 1865 Lima, Peru