Podcast appearances and mentions of Robert Lighthizer

Robert Lighthizer, who served as U.S. trade representative in Donald Trump's first term, sits down with Margaret Hoover to discuss the president's trade agenda, his use of tariffs, and their impact on the economy.Lighthizer, author of No Trade Is Free, explains why he favors “balanced trade” over free trade and makes his case that tariffs can revive American manufacturing. He tells Hoover why he doubts chaos in financial markets will unseat the dollar as a global reserve currency, but he argues a weaker dollar could have benefits.A longtime critic of NAFTA and open trade with communist China, Lighthizer credits Trump for changing the debate about trade in America and trying to solve the problems caused by globalization. He also challenges critics who say tariffs are the wrong approach to come up with a viable alternative.Lighthizer assesses the potential for tariffs to drive up consumer prices and whether they could fuel broader inflation. He admits Trump's implementation of his “Liberation Day” tariffs was not perfect, and he reflects on whether he would join the new administration if asked.Support for “Firing Line for Margaret Hoover” is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, Peter and Mark Kalikow, Cliff and Laurel Asness, The Meadowlark Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, The Marc Haas Foundation, Katharine J. Rayner, Damon Button, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, The Philip I Kent Foundation, Annie Lamont through The Lamont Family Fund, The Susan Rasinski McCaw Fund, Cheryl Cohen Effron and Blair Effron, and Al and Kathy Hubbard. Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. 

Pierre Poilievre announced a semblance of a "housing plan", so let's look at the consequences of his policy ideas like eliminating developer charges. Also, let's discuss another tie to Donald Trump's team that may get him into hot water over the weekend. PS: If the name "Robert Lighthizer" rings a bell, you get brownie points.In this episode of The Bill Kelly Podcast, host Bill Kelly discusses the upcoming 2025 Canadian Election on April 28th, focusing on the dynamics between the leading candidates, Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney. He delves into the importance of the upcoming debates, the housing crisis and proposed policies, and the implications of the Conservative Party's upcoming conference, particularly regarding its ties to Donald Trump. Kelly emphasizes the need for voters to critically analyze the candidates' proposals and the potential impact on everyday citizens.

Ngày 02/04/2025, tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump thông báo áp hàng loạt mức thuế cao nhắm vào hàng hóa nhập khẩu vào Mỹ. Giới chuyên gia lo lắng biện pháp bảo hộ mậu dịch này của ông Trump có nguy cơ dẫn đến suy thoái kinh tế, giá cả tăng vọt, cũng như leo thang trả đũa lẫn nhau. Trong viễn cảnh này, liệu tổng thống Trump có đang lặp lại sai lầm của năm 1930 : Kinh tế Mỹ và thế giới suy sụp do đạo luật Smoot – Hawley gây ra ? Donald Trump ngày 15/10/2024 phát biểu : « Đối với tôi, từ ngữ hay nhất trong từ điển là thuế hải quan. Đó là những từ ngữ tôi thích nhất. Thuế hải quan càng cao, chúng ta càng có nhiều cơ may các doanh nghiệp đến lập cơ sở tại Mỹ để không phải bị trả thuế hải quan. Còn có một lý thuyết khác cho rằng thuế hải quan càng cao, càng khủng khiếp, càng tệ chừng nào, các doanh nghiệp càng đến lập cơ sở nhanh chừng ấy. Khi tôi thông báo mức thuế hải quan là 10%, chỉ có 10% thôi, con số này chiếm đến nhiều trăm triệu đô la. Tất cả những điều này là nhằm giảm mức thâm hụt cán cân thương mại của Mỹ ! »McKinley : Thần tượng của Donald Trump !Tổng thống Trump luôn tin rằng áp thuế hải quan có thể làm cho « Nước Mỹ giàu có » trở lại. Niềm tin này được thể hiện rõ qua việc ông hay viện dẫn William McKinley như một điển hình. Năm 1890, khi vẫn còn là dân biểu Hạ Viện, William McKinley (trở thành tổng thống năm 1897) đã cho thông qua đạo luật « McKinley Tariff Act » khắc nghiệt, áp thuế đến 50% giá trị hàng hóa nhập khẩu.Jean-Baptiste Velut, giáo sư trường đại học Sorbonne Nouvelle, chuyên gia về lịch sử kinh tế - chính trị Mỹ, trên đài phát thanh France Culture (28/01/2025), đưa ra hai luận điểm giải thích vì sao tổng thống Trump xem McKinley như một « thần tượng ».« Thứ nhất, điều thú vị ở đây là xem cách thức chính quyền Trump, kể cả bản thân ông Trump cũng như cựu cố vấn thương mại Robert Lighthizer lấy cảm hứng và sử dụng lịch sử bảo hộ mậu dịch Mỹ như thế nào để chứng tỏ rằng cuối cùng những điều cấm kỵ về chủ nghĩa bảo hộ trong nhiều năm trước đã làm cho người ta không biết đến toàn bộ truyền thống bảo hộ của Mỹ đã tạo nên sức mạnh kinh tế của Mỹ.Điểm thứ hai, đó là khía cạnh hoài niệm của Donald Trump, vốn thích so sánh mình với nhiều tổng thống khác. Tôi tin rằng việc chọn tổng thống McKinley không phải là vô tình. Không những đây là một vị tổng thống theo chủ nghĩa bảo hộ mà còn là một người có tham vọng đế quốc. Và do vậy, điều đó giúp Donald Trump, ở một hình thức nào đó, biện minh cho những tham vọng bành trướng lãnh thổ của mình, đối với kênh đào Panama, hay quần đảo Groenland ngày nay. »Smoot – Hawley Act và cuộc Đại Khủng HoảngNhưng có lẽ ông Trump cũng quên rằng, thuế hải quan đã từng nhấn chìm nước Mỹ vào một trong những thảm họa kinh tế tồi tệ nhất trong lịch sử đất nước : Khủng hoảng kinh tế 1930 do « Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act » gây ra, đưa nước Mỹ vào thời kỳ Đại Suy Thoái.Ngược dòng thời gian, Hoa Kỳ trong những năm 1920 có nền kinh tế khá thịnh vượng. Đó là « những năm 20 sôi động », tỷ lệ thất nghiệp thấp, tăng trưởng cao và ngành công nghiệp phát triển mạnh. Duy chỉ có một lĩnh vực có nhiều dấu hiệu suy yếu : Nông nghiệp.Theo giải thích của ông Sebastien Jean, giáo sư kinh tế tại CNAM, cộng tác viên cho Viện Quan hệ Quốc tế và Chiến lược (IRIS), với trang HuffingtonPost, « ngành nông nghiệp Mỹ trong suốt những năm 1920 cho thấy có dấu hiệu trì trệ do giá cả sụt giảm, ảnh hưởng nghiêm trọng đến cơ cấu ngành bởi sự biến động của những năm tháng chiến tranh. Trước đó là quãng thời gian mà ngành nông nghiệp Mỹ phát triển đáng kể, chủ yếu là vì phải nuôi sống châu Âu, đang trong cảnh chiến tranh (Đệ nhất thế chiến). Nhưng khi chiến tranh kết thúc, châu Âu đã lấy lại sản xuất và ngành nông nghiệp của họ rơi vào tình trạng dư thừa sản xuất kéo dài. »Giới nông gia Mỹ rơi vào khủng hoảng kinh tế. Để ứng phó, Quốc Hội Mỹ năm 1922 thông qua luật Fordney – McCumber, lần đầu tiên tăng thuế hải quan, nhưng chỉ giới hạn ở hàng công nghiệp. Ông Herbert Hoover, thuộc đảng Cộng Hòa, khi vận động tranh cử đã dùng lại ý tưởng được hậu thuẫn bởi những người vận động hành lang cho các nhà sản xuất nông nghiệp, cho rằng nông dân đang chịu thiệt thòi do cạnh tranh quốc tế. Ông đề nghị áp thuế hải quan đối với nông sản nhập khẩu ngay khi đắc cử năm 1929.Dưới sự thôi thúc từ hai nghị sĩ đảng Cộng Hòa là Willis Hawley và Reed Smoot, Quốc Hội Lưỡng Viện đã đồng thuận về mức thuế trung bình là 40% nhắm vào khoảng 20 nghìn loại hàng hóa nhập khẩu, nhưng không chỉ đối với nông sản mà mở rộng sang cả sản phẩm công nghiệp. Quyết định này của chính quyền Hoover đã bị chỉ trích mạnh mẽ trong và ngoài nước.Bất chấp thư ngỏ tập thể của hơn 1.000 kinh tế gia, cảnh báo rằng « việc thông qua các biện pháp bảo hộ này sẽ là một sai lầm », có thể dẫn đến tình trạng giá cả tăng cao cho người tiêu thụ, và mức sống của người dân bị sụt giảm, cũng như là sự phản đối từ khoảng 20 chính phủ các nước, dự luật Smoot – Hawley vẫn được thông qua vào đầu năm 1930.Đại chiến thương mại thế giới và làn sóng bảo hộ mậu dịchĐáng chú ý là văn bản luật này ra đời vào một thời điểm khá nhạy cảm : Vụ sụp đổ thị trường chứng khoán Mỹ, « ngày thứ Năm đen tối » 24/10/1929, đã bắt đầu cho thấy có những tác động đầu tiên đối với nền kinh tế Mỹ : Nhà xưởng lần lượt đóng cửa khiến hàng triệu người dân Mỹ rơi vào cảnh thất nghiệp.Không những ngành nông nghiệp Mỹ chẳng hưởng được lợi gì từ thuế hải quan, mà chính sách bảo hộ của Mỹ đã châm ngòi cho cơn sốt bảo hộ mậu dịch. Các đối tác thương mại của Washington tăng cường trả đũa với nhiều chiến lược khác nhau, từ tăng thuế hải quan, tẩy chay, hay áp đặt hạn ngạch (quota) nhập khẩu hàng Mỹ.Cuộc chiến thương mại này đã làm chao đảo nền kinh tế thế giới, các hoạt động trao đổi thương mại sụt giảm đến hơn 40%. Tuy nhiên, ông Eric Monnet, kinh tế gia, giáo sư sử học tại EHESS, và trường Kinh tế Paris, trên trang Economie Alternative, trích dẫn một nghiên cứu xa xưa do BarryEichengreen và Douglas A. Irwin thực hiện, nêu lên một chi tiết thú vị là cuộc chiến bảo hộ này không chỉ đáp trả Mỹ mà còn thúc đẩy các nước đi theo con đường bảo hộ giống như Mỹ.Chỉ có điều, như ghi nhận từ Bertrand Blancheton, chuyên gia về lịch sử kinh tế thế giới, đại học Bordeaux, khi trả lời kênh truyền hình France 24, trong cuộc đọ sức này, và với việc bùng phát cơn sốt bảo hộ, tất cả các bên đều bị thiệt do tăng trưởng thế giới bị chững lại : « Chính quyền Hoover nghĩ rằng các nước khác sẽ không phản ứng, nhưng họ đã có những hành động trả đũa thương mại. Cuộc chiến thương mại thực sự này đã dẫn đến tình trạng gần như tự cung tự cấp cho đến khi Đệ Nhị Thế Chiến nổ ra. »Đạo luật Smoot-Hawley, một « đạo luật kinh tế ngu xuẩn », theo như chỉ trích từ Henry Ford, nhà sáng lập thương hiệu ô tô nổi tiếng tại Mỹ, đã làm cho cuộc khủng hoảng kinh tế Mỹ 1929 thêm trầm trọng. Chính sách bảo hộ này của Mỹ được cho là một trong những tác nhân chính gây ra cuộc Đại Suy Thoái, góp phần thúc đẩy một cuộc suy thoái mới le lói xuất hiện thành một cuộc khủng hoảng toàn cầu, kéo dài hàng thập kỷ.Trump Act và sự tương đồng với các chính sách cuối thế kỷ XIXTheo giải thích của nhà sử học Jean-Baptiste Velut, trường đại học Sorbonne Nouvelle ,với trang HuffingtonPost, « đạo luật này đã có những tác động tàn phá. Bởi vì, thông qua các tác động gián tiếp, nhiều cường quốc khác, đến phiên họ, đã khép cửa thị trường của mình. Và dần dần từng chút một, kinh tế và thương mại thế giới đã bị mất đến 2/3 giá trị của mình ».Một số sử gia thậm chí còn tin rằng, « Smoot – Hawley Tariff Act » đã góp sức cho sự trỗi dậy của chủ nghĩa Đức Quốc xã, dẫn đến Đệ Nhị Thế Chiến. Tuy nhiên, nhà sử học Jean-Baptiste Velut, trên đài France Culture, cho rằng đây vẫn còn là điều gây nhiều tranh cãi:« Một số nghiên cứu cho thấy rằng về cơ bản, khủng hoảng tài chính là gốc rễ của cuộc khủng hoảng kinh tế Mỹ và thế giới. Nhiều nghiên cứu khác quả thực chỉ ra rằng thuế quan rất cao đã làm trầm trọng thêm các vấn đề về khủng hoảng. Điều thú vị là đạo luật Smoot – Hawley đã trở thành một dạng tội đồ trong lịch sử kinh tế nước Mỹ và dưới góc độ biểu tượng, đạo luật này đã ám ảnh các cuộc tranh luận về tự do mậu dịch và nền ngoại giao Mỹ. »Dù vậy, sử gia về kinh tế Mỹ, Bertrand Blancheton, trả lời France 24, cũng tỏ ra cẩn trọng khi so sánh những gì diễn ra năm 1930 với tình hình hiện nay.« Tốt hơn là nên so sánh những gì chúng ta đang trải qua hiện nay với cuối thế kỷ XIX, từ năm 1880 đến năm 1914. Vào thời kỳ đó, Mỹ có những chính sách thương mại rất tinh vi và phân biệt đối xử. Ý tưởng là nhắm vào một quốc gia, sản phẩm cụ thể và đàm phán. Trong lịch sử kinh tế đương đại, kể từ cuộc cách mạng công nghiệp, có những thời điểm mà người ta tự do hóa và lúc khác họ siết chặt chính sách thương mại bằng cách tái lập thuế hải quan. Nhìn chung, đó là những kỳ kéo dài trong khoảng từ 30 đến 40 năm mỗi lần như thế. »Trump có sẽ cùng cảnh ngộ như Hoover ?Các mức thuế quan mới mà Donald Trump đưa ra, được cho là sẽ mở ra một « thời kỳ hoàng kim » cho nước Mỹ, nhưng lại có nguy cơ khiến các hộ gia đình Mỹ sẽ phải trả giá đắt. Một thăm dò do hãng tin Anh Reuters/Ipsos thực hiện cho thấy, 70% số người Mỹ được hỏi nghĩ rằng tăng thuế hải quan sẽ dẫn đến tăng giá thực phẩm và hàng hóa tiêu dùng hiện nay.Trong những năm 1930, tổng thống Hoover đã phải trả giá cho chính sách thuế quan. Trong cuộc bầu cử tổng thống năm 1932, vì không thể hóa giải được những tác động của cuộc khủng hoảng, tổng thống Cộng Hòa đã bị ứng viên Dân chủ Franklin D. Roosevelt đánh bại nặng nề.Chỉ còn 18 tháng nữa là đến kỳ bầu cử giữa kỳ, đảng Cộng Hòa cũng phần nào lo lắng vì đảng này chiếm đa số sít sao ở Thượng Viện và Hạ Viện. Vào lúc thị trường chứng khoán Mỹ và thế giới hoảng loạn, tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump vẫn kiên định lập trường, không thay đổi chính sách thuế quan nặng nề.Thứ Tư 02/04, khi thông báo áp mức thuế mới chống lại nhiều nước, Donald Trump đã tuyên bố rằng Đại Khủng Hoảng những năm 1930 có lẽ sẽ không xảy ra nếu như việc áp thuế quan vẫn được tiếp tục. « Vào năm 1929, mọi việc đã kết thúc đột ngột cùng với cuộc Đại suy Thoái, và điều đó có lẽ sẽ không bao giờ diễn ra nếu như họ vẫn trung thành với chính sách thuế quan, lịch sử đã có thể rất khác ! »Hơn 90 năm sau ngày ban hành luật Smoot – Hawley, liệu rằng lịch sử có sẽ tái diễn ?

A country that doesn't make anything quickly dies. Former US trade representative Robert Lighthizer explains how Trump's tariff program can stop America's slide. (00:00) Why Do We Need to Reinstitute Tariffs? (06:10) The Slow Death of America's Working Class (14:26) Was There an Organized Effort to Destroy America's Free Market? (19:53) The Trifecta of Stupid (29:12) We Are in an Economic Emergency (36:10) The Three Ways to Balance Global Trade Paid partnerships with: ExpressVPN: Go to https://ExpressVPN.com/Tucker and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free! PureTalk: Switch your cell phone service to a company you can be PROUD to do business with. https://PureTalk.com/Tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More than six million people could die from HIV and AIDS in the next four years if the US pulls its global funding for programs, according to the UN AIDS agency. Thandiwe Mhlambi is part of a program that reduces the risk of HIV among girls and empowers them economically. She joins Christiane from Johannesburg, South Africa.  Also on today's show: James Kunder, Former Deputy Administrator, USAID; Robert Lighthizer, Former US Trade Representative; Joe Wright, Director, "Mussolini: Son of the Century"  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Now that President Donald Trump has retaken the White House and is shaking up Washington with an onslaught of executive orders and controversial nominees for his Cabinet, correspondent Lesley Stahl profiles the longest-serving Senate party leader, Mitch McConnell, on his life, legacy and what he will do next since stepping down from Senate leadership. Tariffs were a signature of President Trump's campaign and are now part of his economic agenda promising to protect American trade and recover manufacturing jobs. Correspondent Scott Pelley interviews Robert Lighthizer, the top trade negotiator during Trump's first term who continues to be an informal advisor and confidant of the president. Last year, the Veterans Administration announced it would begin funding clinical trials to explore the use of psychedelic drugs for treating post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and addiction. However, these trials are small, and even if successful, it will likely be years before veterans can access psychedelics at the VA. Many U.S. veterans struggling with PTSD aren't waiting. Thousands of veterans are traveling overseas seeking relief at psychedelic retreats where these substances are legal to use, mostly in indigenous ceremonies. Correspondent Anderson Cooper follows nine veterans on a psychedelic journey to the west coast of Mexico, where they hope to find healing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of the Energy Security Cubed Podcast, Kelly Ogle and Joe Calnan interview Dan Ujczo about President Elect Trump's plans to hit all goods imports from Canada (including energy) with 25% tariffs, how Trump would go about doing so, and the implications of Canadian policy and trade negotiations into the future. // Guest Bio: - Dan Ujczo is a senior counsel in the International Trade and Transportation practice groups at Thompson Hine LLP // Host Bio: - Kelly Ogle is Managing Director of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute - Joe Calnan is a Fellow and Energy Security Forum Manager at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute // Reading recommendations: - "No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers", by Robert Lighthizer: https://www.amazon.ca/No-Trade-Free-Changing-Americas/dp/0063282135 - "Basketball's Amoeba Defense: A Complete Multiple System", by Fran Webster: https://www.amazon.ca/Basketballs-Amoeba-Defense-Complete-Multiple/dp/0130691399 // Interview recording Date: November 27, 2024 // Energy Security Cubed is part of the CGAI Podcast Network. Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on LinkedIn. Head over to our website at www.cgai.ca for more commentary. // Produced by Joe Calnan. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

Robert Lighthizer is being considered as a potential trade czar to oversee U.S. trade policy across different agencies. No matter what, he will have a sizable role as President-Elect Trump's trade consigliere.  Listen to today's Two Minutes in Trade for more information. 

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

There are reports that Donald Trump wants his former trade representative back when he returns to the White House - what does it mean for the economy?Robert Lighthizer was the man who pushed protectionism and tariffs on imports during President Trump's first term. So what will it mean for global trade if he takes up his old job? And will this provoke another trade war with China?Also, why are Swedish police seizing luxury items without formal suspicion?You can contact us on WhatsApp or send us a voicenote: +44 330 678 3033. We would love to hear from you!

There are reports that Donald Trump wants his former trade representative back when he returns to the White House - what does it mean for the economy?Robert Lighthizer was the man who pushed protectionism and tariffs on imports during President Trump's first term. So what will it mean for global trade if he takes up his old job? And will this provoke another trade war with China?Also, why are Swedish police seizing luxury items without formal suspicion?You can contact us on WhatsApp or send us a voicenote: +44 330 678 3033. We would love to hear from you!

Nossos sócios Gabriel Abelheira, Tomás Goulart e Sarah Campos debatem, no episódio de hoje, os principais acontecimentos da semana no Brasil e no mundo.⁠ ⁠ No cenário internacional, o principal evento da semana foi a vitória do Trump na eleição presidencial americana, acompanhada de elevada probabilidade de ocorrer a “red wave” (vitória republicana também na Câmara dos Representantes e no Senado). Após o resultado, já começaram a circular alguns nomes para o governo, sendo um deles o de Robert Lighthizer para representante comercial, cargo que ocupou no mandato anterior de Trump, quando liderou a guerra comercial com a China. No âmbito de política monetária, o Fed e o BoE cortaram os juros em 0,25%, sem alterações relevantes de discurso. Por fim, a reunião do Congresso chinês terminou com a confirmação de um pacote de 10 trilhões de yuans para estimular a economia, mas sem menção específica a medidas para os setores imobiliário e de consumo. ⁠ No Brasil, ainda não houve divulgação da agenda de corte de despesas por parte do governo, com piora da percepção a respeito do que será apresentado – e diversos ministros mostrando resistência aos ajustes. Também tivemos reunião do banco central por aqui, que elevou a taxa de juros em 0,50%, deixando claro o quanto as implicações fiscais são relevantes para a política monetária. Foi divulgado o IPCA de outubro, com headline em linha, mas composição bastante negativa. ⁠ Nos EUA, o juro de 1 ano abriu 3 bps, enquanto o juro mais longo (30 anos) fechou 11 bps – o destaque ficou para as bolsas: S&P500 +4,66%, Nasdaq +5,41% e Russell2000 +8,57%. Por aqui, os juros tiveram movimento similar, com o jan/25 abrindo 7 bps, e o jan/29 fechando 36 bps. O Ibovespa caiu 0,23%. O dólar valorizou globalmente (DXY), mas o real conseguiu subir 2,36%.  ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Na próxima semana será importante acompanhar a divulgação de dados de inflação e atividade nos EUA e, por aqui, dados de atividade e a ata do Copom. ⁠ ⁠Não deixe de conferir!⁠

En entrevista para MVS Noticias con Manuel López San Martín, Marcelo Ebrard, secretario de Economía, habló sobre la relación con EU. El éxito del T-MEC: Una relación estratégica Marcelo Ebrard hizo hincapié en el éxito que ha tenido el T-MEC desde su implementación. Según el Secretario de Economía, el tratado firmado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá ha traído consigo resultados positivos para México. "Si se ven las iniciativas comerciales, tienen éxito. Un crecimiento de exportaciones de México a EU del 6.5 por ciento en un año es una cifra favorable", destacó Ebrard. Además, subrayó que, comparado con otros países, México ha logrado una posición privilegiada en la relación económica con Estados Unidos. "Ningún país tiene esta circunstancia, somos el país más importante para EU. México no era socio número 1 antes, como lo es ahora", afirmó. Los desafíos de la relación con EU bajo la presidencia de Trump Aunque reconoció el éxito del T-MEC, Ebrard también mencionó que, a pesar de los avances, existen desafíos que se deben abordar. "Creo que Trump va a tratar de hacer el mejor modelo de negocio para Estados Unidos. Hay nervios, temor por Robert Lighthizer, lo conozco, está en una lógica de que todo lo que se pueda regresar a EU, lo va a hacer", señaló Ebrard. En este sentido, Ebrard subrayó la importancia de que México también defienda sus intereses. "Vamos a ver más que un cuestionamiento, una serie de puntos para mayor ventaja para su país, cosa que también yo voy a hacer", señaló con firmeza. Migración, seguridad e integración económica: áreas de coincidencia Uno de los puntos clave en la conversación fue la integración económica y los desafíos comunes entre ambos países. Ebrard explicó que, a pesar de las diferencias, hay áreas donde México y EU comparten intereses y pueden trabajar juntos. "Lo que pienso es que habrá mucho para llegar a un acuerdo porque tenemos intereses parecidos. En migración lo mismo, en seguridad también", indicó.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For this episode of the Global Exchange podcast, Colin Robertson talks with Tim Sargent and CGAI Fellows Lawrence Herman and John Weekes about Canada-US trade and the upcoming review of the CUSMA. This podcast is associated with the work of the Expert Group on Canada-U.S. Relations, an initiative supported by The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, and the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. // Participants' bios - Lawrence Herman is a trade law specialist having served in the Foreign Service and then in private practise. He is a Senior Fellow and member of the National Policy Council of the C. D. Howe Institute - A foreign service officer, John Weekes served as Canada's Chief Negotiator for the NAFTA and then as our Ambassador to the World Trade Organization before a distinguished career in the private sector. - Tim Sargent is Senior Fellow and Director of Domestic Policy at the Macdonald Laurier Institue. A career public servant he held Deputy Minister and Associate Deputy Minister positions at Fisheries and Oceans, International Trade, Finance, and Agriculture and AgriFood, as well as senior positions at the Privy Council Office. // Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson // Read & Watch: - "The Parthenon Marbles Dispute: Heritage, Law, Politics", by Alexander Herman: https://www.bloomsbury.com/ca/parthenon-marbles-dispute-9781509967179/ - "Statesmen, Strategists, and Diplomats: Canada's Prime Ministers and the Making of Foreign Policy", edited by John R. English and Patrice Dutil: https://www.ubcpress.ca/statesmen-strategists-diplomats - "No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers", by Robert Lighthizer: https://www.amazon.ca/No-Trade-Free-Changing-Americas/dp/0063282135 - "Innovation in Real Places – Strategies for Prosperity in an Unforgiving World", by Dan Breznitz: https://politics.utoronto.ca/publication/innovation-in-real-places-strategies-for-prosperity-in-an-unforgiving-world/ // Recording Date: August 6, 2024.

On this episode of the Energy Security Cubed Podcast, Kelly Ogle and Joe Calnan interview Lisa Baiton about CAPP's new Data Centre as well as how the oil and gas industry contributes to the Canadian economy. You can find the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' Data Centre here: https://www.capp.ca/en/capp-data-centre/ // For the intro session, Kelly and Joe discuss the effects of the copper price spike and the prospect of combining cheap solar with expensive grid infrastructure. // Guest Bio: - Lisa Baiton is the CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers // Host Bio: - Kelly Ogle is Managing Director of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute - Joe Calnan is a Fellow and Energy Security Forum Manager at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute // Reading recommendations: - "No Trade is Free", by Robert Lighthizer: www.harpercollins.com/products/no-tr…41004612943906 // Interview recording Date: May 14, 2024 // Energy Security Cubed is part of the CGAI Podcast Network. Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on LinkedIn. Head over to our website at www.cgai.ca for more commentary. // Produced by Joe Calnan. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

On this episode of the Energy Security Cubed Podcast, Joe Calnan interviews Heather Exner-Pirot about Canadian competitiveness in resources, and the factors underlying our challenges. You can find Heather's article for the MacDonald Laurier Institute here: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/canadian-competitiveness-resource-development-post-mortem-heather-exner-pirot-commentary/ // For the intro session, Kelly and Joe discuss the wildfires in Alberta and planned European sanctions on Russian LNG transshipment. // Guest Bio: - Heather Exner-Pirot is Senior Fellow and Director of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment at the MacDonald Laurier Institute // Host Bio: - Kelly Ogle is Managing Director of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute - Joe Calnan is a Fellow and Energy Security Forum Manager at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute // Reading recommendations: - "No Trade is Free", by Robert Lighthizer: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/no-trade-is-free-robert-lighthizer?variant=41004612943906 // Interview recording Date: May 9, 2024 // Energy Security Cubed is part of the CGAI Podcast Network. Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on LinkedIn. Head over to our website at www.cgai.ca for more commentary. // Produced by Joe Calnan. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

Ambassador Robert Lighthizer is the former United States Trade Representative in the Trump administration and the author of the 2023 book, “No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers.” He sat down with Jack Goldsmith to talk about his work as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative under President Reagan, why extreme neoliberal trade policy took hold in the 1990s, his core philosophy on trade and how it departed from the 1990s neoliberal consensus, and the main ways he implemented this view in the Trump administration and with what results. They also discussed the importance of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and why it was controversial, the extent to which the Biden administration adopted Lighthizer's views on free trade, and the relationship between national security and trade policy.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For decades, American trade policy indicated that free trade was always the answer, but during his tenure as US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer “blew" that idea up and implemented policies that put American workers first. He joins Anthony this week to discuss US trade relations, his time in government, and his new book, No Trade is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

U.S. trade policy was ruled for decades by the concept that free trade was always the answer — a fallacy that led to the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs. Former United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer fundamentally changed that and ushered in policy that put American workers first. He joins the podcast to discuss his new book, "No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers", and what the future holds for U.S. trade relations.

For regular listeners, you know I like to take on complicated subjects, and try to make clear what's at stake for all of us.   In this episode the Bill Walton Show we take a another deep dive into one of the most complicated and contentious areas of economic policy:  International trade.  International trade negotiations are incredibly complex multilevel games—there are negotiations not just with America's trading partners, but with Congress, domestic constituencies, and rival factions within the executive branch.  There are sharp - almost theological - differences in how trade policy ought to work. I was taught that protectionism was terrible and that free trade was the highest good, but then found few examples of countries that actually practice it. It's now clear that we cannot simply trust the principles of "free trade" to solve our problems -- that every trade policy represents a balancing of interests. The stakes have never been higher. Today we find ourselves in a position where our most important trading partner - China - has essentially revealed itself to be our mortal enemy. Trade is no longer a boring topic. To break all this down I'm delighted to be joined in this episode by Robert Lighthizer, our US Trade Representative in the Trump Administration.  For more than 40 years, Bob Lighthizer has litigated, negotiated, and editorialized against the policies of one-sided “free trade” first in the Reagan Administration as Deputy Trade Rep and as a private lawyer.  As President Trump's U.S. Trade Representative, he fought against globalists, importers, lobbyists, foreign governments and big businesses whose interests diverged from those of the American workers and American security.  Now Bob's published a illuminating book “No Trade is Free” that for anyone interested in understanding the realities of international economic policymaking, this is the book.  Part memoir, part history, and part policy analysis, Bob lays out in detail what he sees as the objectives of a practical approach to trade policy. Bob's views on this subject have been remarkably consistent since the late 1990s when he editorialized against granting China admission to the WTO. At that time, he was a lonely voice in the wilderness.  Now his views are mainstream. We cover a lot a ground in this episode, from the role trade disputes played in the American Revolution, the American System of tariffs used to build up American industry to the pivotal entry of China into the World Trade Organization. Since then China has become trade issue Number One.  After China's entry “it created an ecosystem and learned about the subsidies and started doing all the other things that made it go from being an enormous problem to being a cataclysmic one,” explains Bob. “There is no private sector in China.” “Outsiders make money in China only as long as the Communist Party of China allows you to make it. And when you're not benefiting them, you're out. And we have all these clever American businessmen who think, "Oh, I'm making money in China." They don't realize they're simply being allowed.”  “China's purpose is for you to transfer know how, transfer technology, and help their ecosystem to get more business. And then you'll see after a period of time, you won't be useful anymore. And then, at that point, you'll find yourself with a Chinese competitor who's not only taken over your entire market in China but is now threatening your market in the United States.” “So the number one thing has to be decoupling with China without question. And there's a number of specific steps, many of which I have outlined in the chapter on the China prescription. We have to right this ship. There's a lot that needs to be done.”

Newt Gingrich. Book- No Trade Is Free. FreedomToons- When your Pilot is an Affirmative Action Hire.   No Trade Is Free In his new book, “No Trade Is Free,” Robert Lighthizer challenges the way we think about trade policy in the United States. The establishments of both political parties, under the influence of multinational corporations and importers, have been unwilling or unable to recognize their trade policy mistakes which have put the American worker and manufacturer at risk while trying to maximize corporate profits, economic efficiency, and cut the price of products. Newt's guest is Robert Lighthizer. He served in President Trump's cabinet as the United States Trade Representative from 2017 to 2021 and was a deputy USTR under President Reagan. Newt's World  Jul 16 2023      When your Pilot is an Affirmative Action Hire FreedomToons 879K subscribers 389,945 views Jul 7, 2023 diversity haha so great yeahh wowwww.. BECOME A MEMBER AT http://freedomtoons.com/members/ to help us make more! HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!  Please go to Apple Podcasts and give ACU a 5 star rating. Apple canceled us and now we are clawing our way back to the top. Don't let the Leftist win. Do it now! Thanks. Forward this show to friends. Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast Click here to subscribe via Apple Podcasts Click here to subscribe via RSS You can also subscribe via Stitcher FM Player Podcast Addict Tune-in Podcasts Pandora Look us up on Amazon Prime …And Many Other Podcast Aggregators and sites ACU on Twitter- https://twitter.com/AmerConU . Warning- Explicit and Violent video content.   Please help ACU by submitting your Show ideas. Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com Please go to Apple Podcasts and give ACU a 5 star rating. Apple canceled us and now we are clawing our way back to the top. Don't let the Leftist win. Do it now! Thanks.   Endorsed Charities -------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Born! Saving babies and Souls. https://preborn.org/ OUR MISSION To glorify Jesus Christ by leading and equipping pregnancy clinics to save more babies and souls. WHAT WE DO Pre-Born! partners with life-affirming pregnancy clinics all across the nation. We are designed to strategically impact the abortion industry through the following initiatives:… -------------------------------------------------------- Help CSI Stamp Out Slavery In Sudan Join us in our effort to free over 350 slaves. Listeners to the Eric Metaxas Show will remember our annual effort to free Christians who have been enslaved for simply acknowledging Jesus Christ as their Savior. As we celebrate the birth of Christ this Christmas, join us in giving new life to brothers and sisters in Sudan who have enslaved as a result of their faith. https://csi-usa.org/metaxas   https://csi-usa.org/slavery/   Typical Aid for the Enslaved A ration of sorghum, a local nutrient-rich staple food A dairy goat A “Sack of Hope,” a survival kit containing essential items such as tarp for shelter, a cooking pan, a water canister, a mosquito net, a blanket, a handheld sickle, and fishing hooks. Release celebrations include prayer and gathering for a meal, and medical care for those in need. The CSI team provides comfort, encouragement, and a shoulder to lean on while they tell their stories and begin their new lives. Thank you for your compassion  Giving the Gift of Freedom and Hope to the Enslaved South Sudanese -------------------------------------------------------- Food For the Poor https://foodforthepoor.org/ Help us serve the poorest of the poor Food For The Poor began in 1982 in Jamaica. Today, our interdenominational Christian ministry serves the poor in primarily 17 countries throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. Thanks to our faithful donors, we are able to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, fresh water, emergency relief, micro-enterprise solutions and much more. We are proud to have fed millions of people and provided more than 15.7 billion dollars in aid. Our faith inspires us to be an organization built on compassion, and motivated by love. Our mission is to bring relief to the poorest of the poor in the countries where we serve. We strive to reflect God's unconditional love. It's a sacrificial love that embraces all people regardless of race or religion. We believe that we can show His love by serving the “least of these” on this earth as Christ challenged us to do in Matthew 25. We pray that by God's grace, and with your support, we can continue to bring relief to the suffering and hope to the hopeless. -------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer from ACU. We try to bring to our students and alumni the World's best Conservative thinkers. All views expressed belong solely to the author and not necessarily to ACU. In all issues and relations, we hope to follow the admonitions of Jesus Christ. While striving to expose, warn and contend with evil, we extend the love of God to all of his children.

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down before a live audience with Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer, 18th United States Trade Representative during the Trump Administration and former Deputy Trade Representative during the Reagan Administration, to discuss his new book "No Trade is Free," the economic and security consequences of trade deficits, pros and cons of tariffs, his negotiations with China, and what can be done to make America secure and prosperous again.#NoTradeIsFree #RobertLighthizer #Trade #TradeDeficit #Tariffs #China #FreeTrade #TrumpRobert Lighthizer served in President Trump's cabinet as the United States Trade Representative from 2017 to 2021 and was a deputy USTR under President Reagan. He is one of America's most respected experts on international trade, having negotiated dozens of international agreements and practiced trade law for more than forty years. Lighthizer was born in Ohio and now lives in Palm Beach, Florida.Learn more about Ambassador Robert Lighthizer's work:https://americafirstpolicy.com/team/bio/robertlighthizerPurchase Lighthizer's new book, "No Trade is Free"https://www.harpercollins.com/products/no-trade-is-free-robert-lighthizer––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/ammomentorgOdysee – https://odysee.com/@AmMomentOrgCheck out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

ATL

In his new book, “No Trade Is Free,” Robert Lighthizer challenges the way we think about trade policy in the United States. The establishments of both political parties, under the influence of multinational corporations and importers, have been unwilling or unable to recognize their trade policy mistakes which have put the American worker and manufacturer at risk while trying to maximize corporate profits, economic efficiency, and cut the price of products. Newt's guest is Robert Lighthizer. He served in President Trump's cabinet as the United States Trade Representative from 2017 to 2021 and was a deputy USTR under President Reagan.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Want to improve the U.S. Senate? Here's a start: Send Mitt Romney into retirement. Mayor Trent Staggs of Riverton, Utah is stepping up to make a Senate primary challenge. He joins Charlie to talk about applying the Liz Cheney principle to the "third senator from Massachusetts." Plus, President Trump's U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, describes how the siren song of "free trade" has driven the economic destruction of middle America, and how rebuilding the country starts with reviving less laissez-faire attitudes towards international trade.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Reagan Revolution brought about a new birth of American trade power. But by the time of the 1990s, American trade policy had begun to serve the interests of other nations rather than our own. With the dawn of the 21st century came the rise of China as a new global superpower unlike any threat […]

The Reagan Revolution brought about a new birth of American trade power. But by the time of the 1990s, American trade policy had begun to serve the interests of other nations rather than our own. With the dawn of the 21st century came the rise of China as a new global superpower unlike any threat the United States had ever faced before, and one that due to our naive trade policies, we were ill-equipped to handle. Robert Lighthizer served as the U.S. Trade Representative during the Trump Administration and is today's guest on The Kevin Robert's Show. During his time in the Trump Administration, he worked to shift U.S. trade practices away from the globalist-crafted, America-last policies that had fused our economy with China's. Stay tuned for an exciting discussion about the future of U.S. trade policy and what America can do to make sure it remains an independent nation free from the influence of hostile powers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

20:57 - Elizabeth Birkemeyer - Red River Valley Fair Director of Marketing and Events 1:21:52 - Greg Tehven - Emerging Prairie Co-Founder and CEO 1:42:20 - Robert Lighthizer - Former United States Trade Representative What's on your mind? We want to know! Email us at StudioFlagFamily [dot] com Subscribe on Spotify, Apple, & Google  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BOOK: “NO TRADE IS FREE, CHANGING COURSE, TAKING ON CHINA, AND HELPING AMERICA'S WORKERSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative during the Trump administration, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the evolution of U.S. trade policy, the China problem, and why Washington should prioritize American workers. You can find Lighthizer's new book "No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers" here.Sponsor:Sound of Freedomhttps://angel.com/freedomJoin the two million and see Sound of Freedom in theaters July 4th.

The Supreme Court finally declares affirmative action, one of the most counter-productive policies of the last half-century, to be unconstitutional.  The Left immediately moves to “the sky is falling” mode… Affirmative Action has caused much more harm than good. The Supreme Court has wisely ended it. Merit should be the only standard... The vote was 6-3, the three leftists on the court dissenting… How long before colleges dream up a new ways to get around this decision?...Dennis talks to Joseph Fornieri, professor of political science at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He presents their new PragerU video and the latest installment in our Presidents series. “Franklin Pierce: A Torn President in a Torn Country. Dennis talks to Robert Lighthizer, a member of President Trump's cabinet as the United States Trade Representative. His new book is No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire three hours of my radio show as a podcast, commercial-free every single day, become a member of Pragertopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as daily show prep. Subscribe today at Pragertopia dot com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer joins Jeff to discuss his recent book No Trade Is Free and the current geopolitical relationship between the US & China. 

0:00 - The way Chicago and NYC make pizza may be different but the way they're run as cities are the same 13:18 - Dan & Charles check out WaPo columnist Wesley Lowery's new book American Whitelash 31:51 - Dan & Charles dive deeper into American Whitelash with reaction from listeners 48:59 - Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and former principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, shares his concern that the current DOJ is doing all it can to protect Biden and his family 01:06:38 - Chicago real estate agent: please stay 01:26:23 - Noted economist Stephen Moore on Bidenomics - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." For more Steve @StephenMoore 01:39:55 - King Randall, I., “community shifter” and founder of the Life Preparatory School for Boys in Albany, Georgia, shares how his school shapes young men into upstanding protectors and providers for their communities. For more on the Life Preparatory School for Boys visit thexforboys.org 01:54:55 - Trump Administration's U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, discusses his new book No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's WorkersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/.REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comFoundation for American Innovation: https://www.thefai.org/posts/lincoln-becomes-faiRobert Lighthizer, former U.S. Trade Representative from 2017-2021 and author of No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America's Workers, joins The Realignment. Robert and Marshall discuss his experience negotiating trade deals with Japan and China in the Reagan and Trump administrations, why the working-class should be at the center of trade policy, the origins of the 2023 manufacturing boom, and the degree to which geopolitical concerns should shape the trade agenda.

[00:00:00] Brett Forrest [00:18:25] Condoleezza Rice [00:36:47] Robert Lighthizer [00:55:10] Daryl Johnston [01:13:31] Michael Goodwin [01:31:55] Jonathan Turley [01:42:30] More to Know Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On May 17th, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party threat held what may prove to be the most important congressional hearing in a generation. It featured testimony from three men who have made history.  Each addressed the unrestricted warfare the CCP has long waged against us. Trump advisor Robert Lighthizer described Beijing's devastating economic and unfair trade practices. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt warned of Chinese efforts to steal and dominate militarily relevant technologies. But it was my friend Roger Robinson – who helped Ronald Reagan take down the Soviet Union, the last totalitarian regime that sought our destruction – who really broke the code. He revealed the invaluable help the Chinese Communists have gotten from Wall Street and how, if we stop underwriting our mortal enemy, we just may succeed in defeating the CCP, too, without fighting.    Let's roll! This is Frank Gaffney.

In this episode, Mariana Campero speaks with former United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer about USMCA and the principles and goals that guided its creation versus the old NAFTA. They also discuss the benefits and limits of the North American market, the issues behind supply chain disruptions, the importance of protecting jobs and livelihoods, and why Mexico matters to the United States.

前美國貿易代表羅伯特‧萊特希澤（Robert Lighthizer）最近投書《經濟學人》（the Economist）雜誌說，美國每年通過貿易赤字輸血給中國，只會餵肥共產黨，同時危害美國和全球利益。 更多內容請見：https://www.epochtimes.com/b5/21/10/8/n13291582.htm 大纪元,大纪元新闻,大紀元,大紀元新聞,萊特希澤, 美國貿易代表, 美中貿易赤字, 中美貿易, 貿易協議 Support this podcast

CPAC is the most important annual conference for conservatives in the United States of America. This year's guests include: Florida governor Ron DeSantis, Senator Mike Lee, Former governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, Senator James Lankford, Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, Senator Ted Cruz, Rep. Mo Brooks, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, Senator Tom Cotton, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Sen. Rick Scott, Sen. Josh Hawley, Donald Trump Jr., Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, Former acting director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senator Bill Hagerty, Trade representative Robert Lighthizer, Rep. Devin Nunes, Senator Cynthia Lummis, Rep. Burgess Owens, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Lauren Boebert, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Former National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow, and Former US President Trump. Today, we talk about none of these people. We talk about AFPAC-- the disruptive and counter cultural new-right movement and their undeniable foray into securing a mainstream position into the political landscape. Come with us on The Cave Of Time Podcast and Livestream as we review AFPAC II. The inevitable based counter cultural response to CPAC featuring Vincent James, Michelle Malkin, Steve King, Paul Gosar, and Nick Fuentes Dlive: https://dlive.tv/cave_time Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/cave_time YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheSLMTube Twitter: https://twitter.com/cave_time Odysee/LBRY: https://odysee.com/@cave_time Any podcast platform: search "The Cave of Time" This podcast is hosted by ZenCast.fm

Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer joins American Compass executive director Oren Cass for a conversation about his work as the U.S. Trade Representative, the overhaul of America's economic relationship with China, successes achieved and lessons learned, and key challenges facing the Biden administration.

We asked CJ Mahoney, the former Deputy United States Trade Representative under Robert Lighthizer in the Trump Administration:Will China tariffs be renegotiated?Will the UK or EU get a trade deal with US?What will Biden's flagship policy be, given a 50-50 Senate?What was the Trump administration's greatest achievement?What happens to the Republican Party post-Trump?What is the biggest geopolitical risk out there?In response, he discusses the outlook for relations with China, the chances of a UK/US trade deal, the potential future leaders of the Republican Party, the key Senators to watch, and what the Biden Administration is likely to achieve. 

La croissance chinoise signe en 2020 un plus bas depuis plus de 40 ans. Son PIB a tout de même progressé de 2,3%, selon les données officielles publiées ce lundi 18 janvier. La performance est très en dessous des 6,1% de 2019, mais, bien que sujet à caution, c'est un score que les économies occidentales peuvent jalouser en plein marasme lié à l'épidémie de Covid-19. La balance commerciale chinoise pourrait bien également faire des envieux. Pékin a pris de la distance.  La Chine a enregistré cette année un excédent commercial global de 535 milliards de dollars. C’est-à-dire qu’elle a exporté pour 535 milliards de dollars de produits de plus qu’elle n’en a importés : son plus haut niveau depuis 2015. Cet excédent provient en premier lieu de ses relations commerciales avec les États-Unis. La balance s’est davantage déséquilibrée cette année au profit de la Chine. Son surplus s’élève désormais à 317 milliards de dollars, en hausse de 7,1 % sur un an. A quelques jours de son départ de la Maison Blanche, c’est un camouflet pour Donald Trump qui avait fait du rééquilibrage de la balance commerciale avec la Chine un de ses chevaux de bataille. Cela dit il faut rappeler qu'en 2019, l'excédent chinois par rapport aux États-Unis avait chuté de 8,5%. Un excédent commercial porté par l’épidémie de Covid-19 Dans la foulée, en janvier 2020, peu de temps avant le début de la crise un accord de trêve avait été trouvé. La Chine s’était engagée à acheter pour 200 milliards de dollars de biens supplémentaires aux Etats-Unis sur deux ans. Mais la pandémie a grippé les rouages de la réconciliation. Certes, au début, la crise sanitaire a freiné l’économie chinoise qui s’est arrêtée avant toutes les autres. D’ailleurs au premier trimestre ses exportations se sont effondrées. Mais l'empire du milieu s’est aussi remis en route plus rapidement. En décembre, les commandes provenant de l'étranger ont même augmenté de 18%, après une hausse de 21% en novembre. Les caractéristiques de la crise de la Covid-19 ont été porteuses pour le commerce chinois. Le pays a exporté beaucoup de produits médicaux. Entre mars et décembre, Pékin a livré 224 milliards de masques dans le monde. Cela représente tout de même 40 masques par personne en dehors du pays.  Avec les confinements et la généralisation du télétravail, les salariés ont dû davantage s’équiper en ordinateur portable, par exemple. Le secteur électronique a eu le vent en poupe ce qui a profité aux ventes chinoises. Pendant ce temps, les restrictions sanitaires aux États-Unis ont été un frein au commerce, explique l'économiste Iris Pang de la banque ING. Mais, il n’est pas dit que l’excédent commercial chinois continuera à s’accentuer de la sorte. Au niveau des exportations chinoises globales, l’arrivée de vaccins va dans un avenir plus ou moins lointain limiter les achats en lien avec la pandémie tels que les masques ou les tests. Cela risque donc à moyen terme de pénaliser les exportations chinoises.  D’un autre côté, la reprise économique devrait favoriser la consommation des Chinois et donc les importations globales du pays. D’ailleurs, sur l'aspect sino-américain, un analyste a relevé des efforts de Pékin et un bond en décembre de ses importations en provenance des États-Unis. Des détails sur la politique de Joe Biden très attendus Quant à la transition à la Maison Blanche, va-t-elle modifier les relations sino-américaines ?  Joe Biden doit détailler sa politique commerciale jeudi, au lendemain de son investiture. Jusqu’à présent, le président-élu a laissé entendre qu’il pourrait s’inscrire dans la continuité concernant la Chine. En décembre, il avait souligné son intention de rester ferme, les démocrates partageant avec les républicains les inquiétudes sur la sécurité nationale. Cela dit, la stratégie pourrait changer. Il envisagerait de faire front commun avec les alliés historiques des États-Unis à l'instar des européens. Des arguments contradictoires lui sont soumis pour l'influencer. Le négociateur sortant de Washington, Robert Lighthizer l’a enjoint à maintenir les sanctions. D’un autre côté, un rapport publié par l’US-China Business Council, qui regroupe 200 entreprises américaines faisant affaire avec la Chine, encourage à réduire les droits de douanes. Dans un scénario étudié par Oxford Economics où les deux gouvernements abaisseraient progressivement les taxes à 12% en moyenne, contre 19% aujourd’hui, l’économie américaine génèrerait 160 milliards de dollars supplémentaires de PIB réel au cours des cinq prochaines années. Cela créerait 145 000 emplois d'ici 2025. Toujours selon cette analyse, le revenu moyen des ménages américains augmenterait également.

Please join us as Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative, discusses judicial activism at the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. The discussion will be moderated by Dean Reuter, Director of Practice Groups at the Federalist Society. Note: This event will be held as a Zoom webinar and registration is required. The virtual event is open to the public and press.Featuring: Hon. Robert Lighthizer, 18th United States Trade RepresentativeModerator: Hon. Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society--- As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The European Parliament has set a Sunday deadline to ratify a Brexit trade deal this year. The BBC's Andrew Walker brings us the latest news on the ongoing negotiations. Also in the programme, we hear from the US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, about the possibility of a UK-US trade deal before the end of the Trump administration. Zambia's president, Edgar Lungu, has said that the state must assume a significant stake in selected copper mines to benefit the country beyond taxes, though argued he is not calling for nationalisation. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Zambia analyst Neil Thompson brings us the details. We have a report from Abuja, Nigeria, on an initiative to use solar-powered fridges to help distribute coronavirus vaccines to even the most remote communities. Plus, a row has broken out between social networking giant Facebook and Apple, over a feature it is introducing to allow users of its products to ban apps from tracking their activities online. Kate O'Flaherty is a technology journalist who specialises in data security, and explains what led to the two tech giants falling out. (Picture: A composite of the European and British flags. Picture credit: Getty Images.)

Sissi De La Peña, Gerente Regional De Comercio Digital Y Organismos Internacionales De La ALAI. (La Asociación Latinoamericana de Internet): Representantes estadounidenses del Grupo Interparlamentario México-Estados Unidos enviaron una carta a Robert Lighthizer, Representante Comercial de EU, para mostrar su preocupación sobre los posibles cambios en los servicios de pagos electrónicos en México. Jorge Sales Boyoli, Socio Fundador Del Bufete De Abogados Sales Boyoli: Advierten pérdida de empleos si desaparece outsourcing. Gabriel Guerra, Analista En Asuntos Internacionales Y Presidente De Guerra Castellanos Y Asociados: Cuál es el mejor escenario para México, ¿que gane Biden o Trump? El sector corporativo estadunidense está rompiendo con Trump.

Hoa Kỳ là thị trường lớn nhất của Việt Nam tính đến tháng 08/2020 theo báo mạng Le Courrier du Vietnam. Nằm trong số 10 đối tác thương mại lớn nhất của Hoa Kỳ, Việt Nam đứng hàng thứ 4 về thặng dư thương mại với Mỹ, lên đến 37,7 tỉ đô la, trong 8 tháng đầu năm 2020, so với 29,8 tỉ đô la cùng kỳ năm 2019. Từ năm 1995, Việt Nam luôn xuất siêu sang Hoa Kỳ. Năm 2016, trong năm đầu tiên nhiệm kỳ tổng thống, ông Donald Trump đã « lưu ý » Việt Nam về thâm hụt thương mại. Đến tháng 01/2020, bộ Ngân Khố Mỹ liệt Việt Nam vào danh sách các quốc gia thao túng tiền tệ do mức thặng dư ngày càng lớn. Washington yêu cầu Hà Nội « giảm can thiệp và cho phép các biến động tỷ giá hối đoái phản ánh các nguyên tắc cơ bản của nền kinh tế, bao gồm cả việc nâng cao dần tỷ giá hối đoái thực tế ». Đến tháng 08/2020, khi thâm hụt thương mại của Mỹ với Việt Nam tăng lên mức kỷ lục, cũng là lúc chính quyền tổng thống Trump công bố mở điều tra Việt Nam thao túng tiền tệ và nguồn gốc gỗ Việt Nam xuất sang Mỹ.   Ngày 02/10, đại diện Thương Mại Mỹ Robert Lighthizer thông báo đang tiến hành điều tra Việt Nam thao túng tiền tệ, chiểu theo Điều 301 của Bộ Luật Thương Mại 1974 -Trade Act). Ngày 08/10, trên trang Công báo Chính phủ, Văn phòng Đại diện Thương Mại Mỹ (USTR) công bố mở điều tra về « luật lệ, chính sách và biện pháp của Việt Nam liên quan đến định giá tiền tệ », trong đó công chúng có thể đóng góp ý kiến cho đến hết ngày 12/11, sau ngày bầu cử tổng thống Mỹ 03/11. RFI Tiếng Việt đặt câu hỏi với giáo sư Eric Mottet, Viện Quan hệ Quốc tế, đại học Québec ở Montréal (UQAM), Canada. **** RFI : Thưa giáo sư Eric Mottet, chính quyền Mỹ quyết định mở điều tra việc định giá tiền tệ của Việt Nam và nguồn gốc gỗ xuất từ Việt Nam sang Mỹ. Nguyên nhân nào khiến Washington đưa ra quyết định này ? GS. Eric Mottet : Từ năm 2018, trong khuôn khổ cuộc chiến thương mại Mỹ-Trung, Việt Nam được lợi nhờ việc nhiều doanh nghiệp Mỹ rời sản xuất khỏi Trung Quốc. Nhưng tiếc là chúng ta đang thấy mối quan hệ thương mại giữa Mỹ và Việt Nam hiện cũng hứng chịu những lo lắng của Washington, giống như từng xảy ra với Trung Quốc và vấn đề lớn giữa hai bên hiện nay là thâm hụt thương mại, không ngừng tăng lên, nghiêng về phía Việt Nam. Việt Nam xuất siêu sang Mỹ gần 56 tỉ đô la vào năm 2019 và một vài đánh giá gần đây nêu lên con số gần 70 tỉ đô la cho Việt Nam vào năm 2020. Mức thặng dư này hiện trở thành một nguy cơ lớn cho Hà Nội vì chính quyền của tổng thống Trump rất cứng rắn trong cuộc chiến chống gian lận thương mại, gây thiệt hại cho người lao động và doanh nghiệp Mỹ. Vì thế, chính quyền tổng thống Trump đã yêu cầu bộ Ngân Khố Hoa Kỳ xem xét kĩ lưỡng 6 tháng một lần tình hình với các quốc gia mà Mỹ bị thâm hụt thương mại nghiêm trọng. Theo kết quả được công bố cách đây vài tháng, dường như Việt Nam đã thao túng tiền tệ. Bộ Ngân Khố Hoa Kỳ còn thẩm định rằng tiền “đồng” Việt Nam đã bị hạ khoảng 5% vào năm 2019. Có nghĩa là có hai vấn đề cùng lúc, thứ nhất là thặng dư thương mại nghiêng về phía Việt Nam, thứ hai là tiền “đồng” bị giảm giá trị. Điều này khiến Việt Nam nhập khẩu ít hàng hóa và dịch vụ của Mỹ hơn vì quá đắt. Ngoài cuộc điều tra về tiền tệ của Việt Nam, còn phải lưu ý đến 2 cuộc điều tra phụ, được tiến hành song song. Cuộc điều tra phụ thứ nhất nhắm vào gỗ của Việt Nam. Chúng ta biết hiện nay, về mặt xuất khẩu đồ nội thất gỗ sang Mỹ, Hoa Kỳ là khách hàng lớn nhất, mua nhiều gỗ của Việt Nam nhất. Cuộc điều tra được tiến hành để tìm hiểu xem gỗ xuất từ Việt Nam có đúng là được khai thác ở Việt Nam hay không, chứ không phải là gỗ nhập lậu, ví dụ từ Cam Bốt. Cuộc điều tra phụ thứ hai có từ mùa hè 2020, cũng do bộ Thương Mại tiến hành, về chống bán phá giá và chống trợ cấp ống đồng của Việt Nam xuất sang Hoa Kỳ. Như vậy, có thể thấy Mỹ đang tiến hành cùng lúc ba cuộc điều tra liên quan đến quy tắc thương mại nhắm vào Việt Nam. RFI : Trong trường hợp bị cáo buộc thao túng tiền tệ, Việt Nam sẽ phải chịu những hậu quả gì ? GS. Eric Mottet : Cần nhắc lại rằng Việt Nam không phải là nước duy nhất bị Hoa Kỳ điều tra, mà có khoảng 10 nước, từ Đức, Ý đến Nhật Bản hay Malaysia và Singapore. Có nghĩa là Mỹ sẽ tổ chức điều tra nếu thâm hụt thương mại vượt ngưỡng 1 tỉ đô la. Một điểm cần nhớ khác là các bộ luật của Mỹ liên quan đến hình thức thương mại thường có lợi cho Hoa Kỳ, cho phép tổng thống đưa ra những biện pháp trả đũa thuế quan đối với những nước không tôn trọng luật pháp Mỹ, có nghĩa là Bộ Luật Thương Mại (US Trade Act), được thông qua năm 1974, mà người ta vẫn nhắc đến Điều 301, từng được sử dụng nhắm vào Trung Quốc từ năm 2018. Dĩ nhiên, Việt Nam có thể bị trả đũa thuế quan hoặc phi thuế quan, hơi giống như mô hình áp dụng với Trung Quốc. Nhưng hiện tại, một điểm quan trọng cần được lưu ý là cuộc điều tra sẽ kéo dài nhiều tháng, ví dụ trong trường hợp Trung Quốc, cuộc điều tra kéo dài 6 tháng, trước khi kết thúc báo cáo và công bố. Sau đó phải chờ thêm 3 đến 4 tháng để các biện pháp trừng phạt có hiệu lực. Ngoài ra, dù có kết luận thế nào về phương pháp của Việt Nam thì báo cáo cũng sẽ đến sau cuộc bầu cử tổng thống Mỹ ngày 03/11. Vì thế, mọi chuyện đối với Việt Nam còn tùy thuộc vào việc Mỹ sẽ có tổng thống mới là Trump hay Biden. RFI : Liệu Hà Nội có một giải pháp nào đó để giải quyết vấn đề này, cũng như tránh để xảy ra đối đầu trực tiếp, trong khi Hoa Kỳ hiện đang đóng vai trò đối trọng quan trọng với Trung Quốc ở Biển Đông ? GS. Eric Mottet : Theo tôi, hiện giờ Việt Nam không có lựa chọn mà phải hợp tác với bộ Ngân Khố Hoa Kỳ và trả lời những câu hỏi của phía Washington về việc có thao túng tiền tệ hay không. Tôi nghĩ là Việt Nam cần kéo dài thời gian, có nghĩa là Hà Nội nên đợi, bình tĩnh trước hoàn cảnh này, chờ xem những ý định thực của Washington. Cũng không hẳn là không có khả năng rằng gây chút sức ép với Việt Nam nằm trong chiến lược của tổng thống Trump để được tái đắc cử. Sau đó cũng chờ xem, nếu Joe Biden được bầu làm tổng thống, liệu ông ấy có bỏ cuộc điều tra hay không. Ở thời điểm hiện tại, chỉ có thể đưa ra lời khuyên là Việt Nam bình tĩnh, hợp tác với bộ Ngân Khố Hoa Kỳ, chờ kết quả bầu cử tổng thống Mỹ. Ngoài ra, không nên quên là mối quan hệ song phương trong khoảng 10 năm gần đây đã được thắt chặt rất nhiều bởi vì Việt Nam trở thành một đối tác chiến lược rất quan trọng của Mỹ, trong đó có cả việc chống lại những tham vọng của Trung Quốc. Tiếp theo, về phương diện chiến lược của Mỹ, Việt Nam có vai trò quan trọng, đặc biệt là ở Biển Đông, khu vực mà Hoa Kỳ đã thông qua một ngân sách để tái đầu tư vào kế hoạch quân sự và an ninh và dĩ nhiên Việt Nam nằm trong chiến lược này của Hoa Kỳ. Vì thế, tôi nghĩ rằng không cần quá lo lắng lúc này, nên hợp tác và chờ kết quả bầu cử tổng thống Mỹ để biết ai sẽ là tân chủ nhân Nhà Trắng trong vài tuần tới, cũng như không nên quên tất cả những nỗ lực, tiến bộ đạt được trong mối quan hệ Mỹ-Việt Nam từ vài năm gần đây. RFI : Có nghĩa là tạm thời không cần phải lo rằng cuộc điều tra này, cũng như trong trường hợp Việt Nam bị cáo buộc, sẽ tác động đến quan hệ song phương ? GS. Eric Mottet : Tôi không nghĩ là sẽ có tác động. Chưa biết được ! Vì một lần nữa cần nhắc lại là mối quan hệ song phương hiện rất tốt, trong khi cách đây không lâu, thì không được như vậy. Việt Nam có mối quan hệ tốt với Mỹ dưới nhiệm kỳ tổng thống Trump. Hai chuyến đến Việt Nam của ông Donald Trump, vào năm 2017 và 2019, đã thắt chặt thêm mối quan hệ này. Theo một thăm dò mà tôi đọc gần đây, người Việt Nam ủng hộ ông Donald Trump vì ông kịch liệt chống Trung Quốc, cũng như sự ủng hộ của Mỹ trong vấn đề Biển Đông. Ngoài ra, giữa hai nước có nhiều thỏa thuận đối tác chiến lược, hợp tác trong nhiều lĩnh vực quan trọng, như về thương mại mà tôi đề cập ở trên. Trong lĩnh vực năng lượng, hai bên vừa mới ký nhiều thỏa thuận để Mỹ xuất khẩu khí hóa lỏng sang Việt Nam, trong khi Việt Nam đang rất cần để đối phó với tình trạng thiếu năng lượng ngày càng nghiêm trọng. Mối quan hệ song phương hiện rất tốt, dù đúng là đang có điều tra. Có lẽ Việt Nam sẽ điều chỉnh một chút về thặng dư thương mại với Mỹ. Và nếu xảy ra căng thẳng hay xung đột giữa Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ thì cũng sẽ không đến mức độ gay gắt như giữa Trung Quốc và Mỹ. Thực vậy, bất bình và bực tức nhỏ hiện nay giữa Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ chỉ liên quan đến lĩnh vực thương mại và cán cân thương mại song phương, chứ không liên quan đến việc cung cấp công nghệ hay quy mô an ninh và quân sự. Vì vậy, nếu xảy ra thì xung đột cũng chỉ ở cấp độ nhẹ và có thể giải quyết bằng cách áp dụng một thỏa thuận song phương mới giữa Mỹ và Việt Nam. RFI : Theo giáo sư, mối quan hệ giữa Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ sẽ trở nên như thế nào sau cuộc bầu cử tổng thống Mỹ ngày 03/11 ? GS. Eric Mottet : Cần phải nói là chính chính quyền Trump đã thúc đẩy tiến trình xích lại gần với Việt Nam nhiều hơn so với dưới thời Obama, thuộc đảng Dân Chủ. Đúng là có những bất đồng trên phương diện thương mại, nhưng tôi nghĩ rằng Việt Nam và Hoa Kỳ hiện có cùng suy nghĩ trong lĩnh vực an ninh và an toàn ở Biển Đông, cũng như trên nhiều vấn đề và hợp tác khác, đặc biệt là về quản lý sông Mêkông, năng lượng… Đúng là có một chút căng thẳng về thương mại, nhưng tôi không nghĩ là, nếu được bầu lại, chính quyền Trump sẽ gia tăng sức ép và xung đột trực diện ở mức độ trung bình với Việt Nam vì những lý do mà tôi nêu ở trên và hơn nữa, chính chính quyền Trump đã thúc đẩy mạnh mẽ quan hệ hợp tác với Hà Nội trên nhiều lĩnh vực trong những năm gần đây. Cuối cùng, cũng cần chú ý là chính quyền Trump, nếu tái đắc cử, hay chính quyền Biden, nếu được bầu, đều cần đến Việt Nam để triển khai chiến lược kinh tế, năng lượng, công nghệ chống lại sức mạnh của Trung Quốc. RFI Tiếng Việt xin chân thành cảm ơn giáo sư Mottet, Viện Quan hệ Quốc tế, đại học Québec ở Montréal (UQAM), Canada.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer joins Kevin and Paul to discuss the Trump agenda, China, and the USMCA. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

9-16: Ambassador Robert Lighthizer by KCMO Talk Radio

After some confusion about whether talks were going to happen at all, Liu He, Robert Lighthizer, and Steve Mnuchin held a call about the Phase One deal. To get an update on this and the response from the Chinese side,

Kenya and the United States formally launched negotiations on Wednesday for a bilateral trade pact that the two economies hope could serve as a model for additional agreements across the African continent. In a joint statement, trade ministers for the two countries, Betty Maina and Robert Lighthizer, said they were holding an initial round of talks virtually over the next two weeks due to the coronavirus. Maina and Lighthizer said they believe this agreement with Kenya will complement Africa’s regional integration efforts, including in the East African Community and the landmark African Continental Free Trade Area. Two-way goods trade between the United States and Kenya totaled $1.1 billion in 2019, up 4.9% from 2018. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Wednesday’s first hour of AgriTalk told host Chip Flory that Phase-1 of the trade agreement between the U.S. and China is very much intact. Ambassador Lighthizer did not rule out a decoupling of the U.S. from China, but he made it clear the Trump Administration and his team at USTR are working to enforce existing trade agreements and to continue negotiations on Phase-2. Ambassador Lighthizer also said, contrary to earlier reports, the Chinese government did not order state-owned companies to “pause” purchases of U.S. ag products. Those purchases under Phase-1 of the agreement are to total more than $30 billion in calendar year 2020, according to Lighthizer.

Robert Lighthizer pide al próximo director de la OMC disciplinar a ChinaPese a contingencia, 1.7 millones de adultos mayores están trabajando: CIEP Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robert Lighthizer pide al próximo director de la OMC disciplinar a ChinaPese a contingencia, 1.7 millones de adultos mayores están trabajando: CIEP

1. การเดินทางมาเยือนอินเดียในครั้งนี้ของทรัมป์จึงกลายเป็นจุดสนใจของหลายๆ ฝ่ายว่าครั้งนี้อาจจะมีได้ข้อสรุปอะไรบางอย่างเกี่ยวกับข้อตกลงทางการค้าก็เป็นได้ ทาง Robert Lighthizer ตัวแทนการค้าของสหรัฐฯ ก็จะเดินทางไปอินเดียด้วยเช่นกันในสัปดาห์นี้ โดยมีข่าวออกมาว่าประเด็นที่จะถูกพูดถึงในการเจรจาจะมีเรื่องของ การป้องกันประเทศ พลังงาน อุปกรณ์การแพทย์ และสินค้าทางการเกษตร2. บริษัท บีพี เตรียมที่จะทำ Carbon Neutrality ภายในปี 2050 สร้างความกดดันให้กับบริษัทน้ำมันเจ้าอื่นๆ ทันที ไม่ว่าจะเป็น Exxon Mobil หรือ Chevron เพราะอย่างที่ทุกคนทราบว่าบริษัทพลังงานยักษ์ใหญ่เหล่านี้ก็เป็นหนึ่งในผู้ที่ส่งผลกระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสภาพภูมิอากาศนับเป็นการประกาศเป้าหมายที่ทะเยอทะยานเป็นอย่างมาก สำหรับผู้บริหารคนใหม่ของ BP ที่ตั้งเป้าจะลดปริมาณการปล่อย CO2  ทาง BP พึ่งมีการเปลี่ยนผู้บริหารจาก Bob Dudley เป็น Bernad Looney 3. South China Morning Post รายงานว่าในขณะนี้มีผู้ติดเชื้ออยู่ที่ 60,107 คน เสียชีวิต 1,363 คน และรักษาหายแล้ว 5,680 คน จะเห็นว่าตัวเลขผู้ติดเชื้อเพิ่มขึ้นมามากกว่า 15,000 คน คือในจีนโดยเฉพาะในมณฑลหูเป่ย ได้ทำการตรวจสอบผู้ป่วยว่ามีการติดเชื้อหรือไม่ด้วยวิธีใหม่คือ Imaging Scans ซึ่งต่างจากวิธีก่อนหน้านี้ที่ใช้ Nucleic acid testing kits จึงส่งผลให้มีผู้ได้รับการตรวจสอบมากขึ้น เพราะทำได้ง่ายกว่า จึงไม่แปลกที่จะมีการพบผู้ติดเชื้อมากขึ้น คิดภาพง่ายๆคือ เหมือนกับปกติตรวจได้ 100 คน เจอติดเชื้อซัก 40 คน แต่ตอนนี้ตรวจได้ 1000 คน จึงพบผู้ติดเชื้อสูงขึ้น

1. การเดินทางมาเยือนอินเดียในครั้งนี้ของทรัมป์จึงกลายเป็นจุดสนใจของหลายๆ ฝ่ายว่าครั้งนี้อาจจะมีได้ข้อสรุปอะไรบางอย่างเกี่ยวกับข้อตกลงทางการค้าก็เป็นได้ ทาง Robert Lighthizer ตัวแทนการค้าของสหรัฐฯ ก็จะเดินทางไปอินเดียด้วยเช่นกันในสัปดาห์นี้ โดยมีข่าวออกมาว่าประเด็นที่จะถูกพูดถึงในการเจรจาจะมีเรื่องของ การป้องกันประเทศ พลังงาน อุปกรณ์การแพทย์ และสินค้าทางการเกษตร 2. บริษัท บีพี เตรียมที่จะทำ Carbon Neutrality ภายในปี 2050 สร้างความกดดันให้กับบริษัทน้ำมันเจ้าอื่นๆ ทันที ไม่ว่าจะเป็น Exxon Mobil หรือ Chevron เพราะอย่างที่ทุกคนทราบว่าบริษัทพลังงานยักษ์ใหญ่เหล่านี้ก็เป็นหนึ่งในผู้ที่ส่งผลกระทบต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสภาพภูมิอากาศ นับเป็นการประกาศเป้าหมายที่ทะเยอทะยานเป็นอย่างมาก สำหรับผู้บริหารคนใหม่ของ BP ที่ตั้งเป้าจะลดปริมาณการปล่อย CO2 ทาง BP พึ่งมีการเปลี่ยนผู้บริหารจาก Bob Dudley เป็น Bernad Looney 3. South China Morning Post รายงานว่าในขณะนี้มีผู้ติดเชื้ออยู่ที่ 60,107 คน เสียชีวิต 1,363 คน และรักษาหายแล้ว 5,680 คน จะเห็นว่าตัวเลขผู้ติดเชื้อเพิ่มขึ้นมามากกว่า 15,000 คน คือในจีนโดยเฉพาะในมณฑลหูเป่ย ได้ทำการตรวจสอบผู้ป่วยว่ามีการติดเชื้อหรือไม่ด้วยวิธีใหม่คือ Imaging Scans ซึ่งต่างจากวิธีก่อนหน้านี้ที่ใช้ Nucleic acid testing kits จึงส่งผลให้มีผู้ได้รับการตรวจสอบมากขึ้น เพราะทำได้ง่ายกว่า จึงไม่แปลกที่จะมีการพบผู้ติดเชื้อมากขึ้น คิดภาพง่ายๆคือ เหมือนกับปกติตรวจได้ 100 คน เจอติดเชื้อซัก 40 คน แต่ตอนนี้ตรวจได้ 1000 คน จึงพบผู้ติดเชื้อสูงขึ้น

Flashing red… U.S. shipping and logistics giant Fed Ex sees shares slump after it issues its second profit warning in three months, citing ‘significant challenges’ in 2020. President Trump eyes a new trading partner as trade representative Robert Lighthizer says the U.S. wants to slash its trade deficit with Europe and may hike tariffs on EU goods. In currency news, sterling continues its slide against the dollar after Prime Minister Boris Johnson sets a December 2020 deadline for trade talks with Brussels, raising fresh fears of a cliff-edge Brexit. And, the boards of FCA Group and PSA greenlight a mega-merger which would create the world’s fourth-largest automaker.

El acuerdo comercial entre EEUU y China tiene un alcance notable, pero no resolverá todos los problemas entre las dos economías más grandes del mundo. Así lo ha asegurado en una entrevista a la CBS el representante comercial de EEUU, Robert Lighthizer. La Cumbre del Clima de Madrid, la COP25, fracasa en definir la regulación de los mercados de emisiones de carbono. En China, la producción industrial y las ventas al por menor de noviembre superan las expectativas.

O representante de comércio dos Estados Unidos, Robert Lighthizer, disse, em entrevista ao programa "Face the Nation", da CBS, neste domingo, que a primeira fase do acordo com a China "está resolvida". "Em todo acordo, há um período de tradução, há algumas questões. Mas isso está totalmente resolvido, com certeza", afirmou. Segundo ele, o setor agropecuário norte-americano deve vender mais para a China, mas também haverá ampliação dos negócios em áreas como indústria e serviços. "Temos uma lista que inclui indústria, agricultura, serviços, energia e afins. Haverá um total para cada um desses", complementou o representante. "No segundo ano, nós praticamente duplicaremos exportações de produtos para a China, se esse acordo estiver em vigor."

One week after the handshakes, photo ops and press conferences in Washington, we analyse whether there was really a trade deal struck between the US and China, or whether the dignitaries just kicked the can down the road. South China Morning Post political economy editors Zhou Xin and John Carter slice and dice the outcome of the talks between the two teams lead by Liu He and Robert Lighthizer, and explain what has to happen before any deal can be signed in November. Zhou says China has…

Vice Premier Liu He and top Chinese negotiators will meet today and tomorrow with Robert Lighthizer and Steve Mnuchin at the White House for the 13th round of trade negotiations. The speech on Tuesday by Jerome Powell spoke of continued strength in the economy, and gave no indication of the Fed's position going into the October 29 and 30 meeting. The latest Economic Reports begin with Jobless Claims. Get The Word On Wall Street every Monday and Thursday at 8:25 when RBC Wealth Management's Holly Kennedy joins AM Quad Cities.

Companies and foreign governments are scrambling to adjust to a world in which tariffs could escalate and the very foundations of world trading rules are in doubt. And there is fear they'll be forced to take sides between the reigning global superpower and its rising rival. Ben White joins Luiza Savage to unpack the madness of the Trump Administration's trade policy and its trade fight with China. This is an episode of the latest POLITICO podcast, Global Translations. Check it out at www.politico.com/global-translations or find it wherever you get your shows.

Companies and foreign governments are scrambling to adjust to a world in which tariffs could escalate and the very foundations of world trading rules are in doubt. And there is fear they’ll be forced to take sides between the reigning global superpower and its rising rival. Interviews include: ·      Caroline Freund, director of trade, regional integration and investment climate and the World Bank ·      Tom Lix, CEO of Cleveland Whiskey·      Dan Ujzco, international trade and customs attorney with Dickinson Wright·      Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada·      James Bacchus, former chief judge of WTO appellate body·      Lawrence Lau, professor of economics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong

This week on Sinica, Kaiser and Jeremy chat with Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, about a new paper she has authored that calls for coordination between the U.S. and other countries in managing issues related to China trade. She makes the case for working through the WTO and other multilateral organizations, and explains why China is more apt to respond more positively to multilateral over bi- or unilateral approaches. What to listen for on this week’s Sinica Podcast: 4:08: American and Chinese economic advisers Robert Lighthizer and Liu He are said to be inching toward finalizing an agreement on bilateral trade in the early weeks of May. To begin, Wendy offers some insight into what developments could come: “I think we’re going to see a pretty robust agreement between the United States and China. It’ll have up to 150 pages of commitments, including market access commitments, purchasing commitments, structural reform commitments, as well as an enforcement mechanism to make sure China lives up to its obligations under the commitments.” 16:11: Wendy suggests that the building of new coalitions may be necessary, given the difficulty in gathering the 164 votes from each World Trade Organization member country needed for a formal agreement, and urges openness on collaboration on different issues with a wider range of partners. “What we’re advocating is that the United States doesn’t get fixated on working with the same countries on certain issues…  If the United States has concerns, chances are other countries have concerns, too. So reach out to other countries and see if, at a minimum, you can share information, and maybe, at a maximum, coordinate responses or even send joint representations to China on what needs to be changed. There’s a range of options.” 25:28: What of investment restrictions on Chinese companies in the United States? Wendy elaborates on her suggested strategy: “We suggest that the United States work and coordinate with other countries to see what they’re doing in this area. Because, for the United States, we don’t want to see a situation where we put so many restrictions on Chinese access to our market, and then China just turns elsewhere. Our measures are then less effective.” 29:41: Could this approach lead to a less antagonistic relationship with China, at least regarding trade? Wendy explains: “My hope is that with a U.S.-China trade agreement in the offing, I think, once again, we’re in the endgame and we’ll see a trade agreement soon. We’ll see, at least on the trade front, a reduction in tensions in this area and hopefully this reduction will maybe spread to other areas. I do think we’re in a new world now — that there’s going to be tensions between the United States and China in all of these areas — but I’m hopeful that through the close contacts our negotiators have forged as a result of the U.S.-China trade talks, that this could help deescalate a lot of tensions as they are emerging…” Recommendations: Jeremy: A free bird identification app called Merlin Bird ID, produced by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Wendy: Finding a few songs to help the Chinese and U.S. negotiators to get through the highs and lows of international trade talks. Kaiser: Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, by John Carreyrou.

Photo: (House of Commons/PA via AP) U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer said yesterday that the U.S. is working on steel, aluminum tariff relief for Canada and Mexico. LISTEN: https://omny.fm/shows/bill-kelly-show/podcast-catherine-mckenna-cut-arts-centre-funding Guest: Marvin Ryder. Business Professor, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. 

Photo: (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) Catherine McKenna, the Federal minister of Environment and Climate Change is going to be in Hamilton today to talk about climate change and the impact at the local level. Guest: Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The Province has taken back a $3 million grant for a major arts centre project in Ancaster. According to MPP Donna Skelly, the cash was ‘never actually accounted for in the budget'. Guest: Lloyd Ferguson City Councillor, Ward 12, City of Hamilton. U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer said yesterday that the U.S. is working on steel, aluminum tariff relief for Canada and Mexico. Guest: Marvin Ryder. Business Professor, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. 

Jim Iuorio joins in with a check in on the markets. Listeners to the FarrCast know that when the markets bounced on Christmas Eve, there would be a pause in the rally about 2645 (and there was) and then at 2800 (and here we are.) Jim says to break higher we need two things: a real (even if incomplete) agreement with China, AND the Fed doesn't re-pivot and turn hawkish. If we see a "grace period" Jim thinks the markets will power through the 2800 level. For the second segment, Dan Mahaffee joins us -- it's a big week in DC. Trump walked away from the table in VIetnam -- The President saw a no deal was better than a bad deal with North Korea. Dan explains Robert Lighthizer's task: negotiating any enforcement of a deal with China. It's a huge task, but incremental progress seems to being made. Dan says we get a deal, but it will be vague, and there will likely have a "snapback" tariff mechanism. Meanwhile in DC, the Democrats are sorting out the 2020 contenders, and Dan says a Biden announcement appears imminent. Michael closes the show with an explanation of how the supply solutions to the Financial Crisis are reaching their limits. The slow growth environment of the economy has deep roots, and lower returns on investment are likely to be the norm for sometime. But the future isn't bleak -- ok IS ok! Lower returns doesn't mean no return at all.

The word today is "string," as the Dow finished the week down just 6 points, ending 9 straight weeks of increases. Sources say a U.S.-China deal may be announced later this month as Robert Lighthizer has continued negotiations following the work done previously in Washington and Beijing. Tomorrow's New Home Sales kicks off this week's Economic Reports. Get The Word On Wall Street every Monday and Thursday at 8:25 when RBC Wealth Management's Holly Kennedy joins AM Quad Cities.

Thursday 28th February 2019 The US trade representative Robert Lighthizer raised some concerns for the markets as he suggested that any trade deal would require significant structural change on China’s part. As NAB’s Rodrigo Catril discusses with Phil Dobbie it was one of three pieces of news that drove sentiment overnight. The other two were the rising expectation that Brexit will be delayed and the third, the sudden cuts in US oil inventories has pushed prices higher. They also discuss the fallout from yesterday’s Australian construction numbers, and what Jerome Powell had to say during his second day in front of Congress. As usual, they also look ahead to the data to look out for today.

Descarga este episodio AMAZON LIVE, ES EL CANAL DE SHOPPING EN VIVO DEL GIGANTE DE LAS VENTAS ONLINE. El gigante del retail ha lanzado un canal de compras similar a QVC.  ´Amazon Live´ es un programa donde los invitados presentan productos, mientras que los usuarios pueden hacer clic en los enlaces para comprar los productos de los que están hablando. El canal no está en la página de inicio de de la plataforma y aún no ha recibido mucha atención. DIGITAL TRENDS | AMAZON LIVE CREATOR JUAN GUAIDÓ ASEGURA QUE YA ENTREGARON PRIMERA TANDA DE AYUDA HUMANITARIA. El jefe del Parlamento de Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, quien se proclamó mandatario interino del país en enero pasado, informó este lunes que ya fue entregado el primer cargamento de la ayuda humanitaria que gestiona desde hace días y que el Gobierno de Nicolás Maduro ha estado bloqueando. En ese sentido, señaló -en Twitter- que este primer cargamento de ayudas "representa 20 raciones para cada beneficiario, y corresponde a la primera fase de atención a las poblaciones más vulnerables" de la crisis humanitaria que, asegura, atraviesa Venezuela. El mandatario interino acusó el domingo a Maduro y a su Gobierno de ser "casi genocidas" por bloquear el ingreso de las ayudas y aseguró que de esta manera "asesinan por acción y omisión". Guaidó también pidió a los militares que permitan el ingreso de las ayudas y le den la espalda a Maduro, un llamamiento que repite en casi cada alocución. TWITTER INFORME FORENSE SOBRE EL CASO EMILIANO SALA. Emiliano Sala murió por lesiones en la cabeza y el tronco, producto del impacto del avión en que viajaba. Así le establece el informe forense que se han dado a conocer este lunes en Bournemouth (Reino Unido) en relación al accidente que costó la vida al futbolista argentino. De momento, no hay información sobre el paradero del piloto y su familia ha lanzado una campaña de micromecenazgo para financiar la búsqueda. 20MINUTOS | EL COMERCIO FACEBOOK INVIERTE EN INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL. Facebook está invirtiendo en inteligencia artificial con su última adquisición. Compró GrokStyle, una startup que utiliza AI para ayudar a los usuarios a comprar muebles. Los usuarios pueden tomar una foto de un mueble y la tecnología lo combina con productos similares disponibles para comprar en línea. La tecnología podría funcionar bien con Facebook Marketplace. IPROUP | SDP EE.UU Y CHINA INICIAN NUEVA RONDA DE NEGOCIACIONES. Estados Unidos y China han comenzado una nueva ronda de negociaciones en Pekín este 11 de febrero con la intención de finalizar su enfrentamiento comercial antes del 1 de marzo, fecha límite para alcanzar un consenso. Tras terminar un primer encuentro en un hotel de la capital china, el representante comercial adjunto de EE.UU., Jeffrey Gerrish, no ha querido responder a las preguntas de los reporteros, informa South China Morning Post. Junto con su equipo de funcionarios de segundo rango, el enviado de Washington debe preparar las negociaciones de alto nivel que tendrán lugar los próximos 14 y 15 de febrero e involucrarán a su jefe, Robert Lighthizer, al secretario del Tesoro de EE.UU., Steven Mnuchin y al vice primer ministro de China, Liu He. FINANZAS | SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST SAMSUNG YA QUIERE MOSTRARTE SU TELÉFONO PLEGABLE. Samsung parece estar entusiasmado y con ganas por mostrar su teléfono plegable al público. A este respecto, acaba de publicar un nuevo vídeo en YouTube con el que se nos quiere hacer el cuerpo a todo lo que tiene previsto presentar en el evento Unpacked, fijado para el próximo 20 de febrero, básicamente para la próxima semana, y con ello acabarse con la incógnita del nuevo y misterioso dispositivo junto a la presentación de los nuevos Galaxy S10. XATAKA | ANDRO4ALL GOBIERNO FRANCÉS IMPLEMENTA EL ´PASE CULTURAL´. El Gobierno francés experimenta desde esta semana con el “pase cultural” que prometió Emmanuel Macron durante la campaña. Al cumplir la mayoría de edad los franceses se beneficiarán de un crédito de 500 euros, concedidos por el Estado, para invertir en productos y actividades culturales. El dispositivo acaba de entrar en un periodo de prueba de seis meses, en el que participarán 13.000 voluntarios de cinco departamentos. EL PAIS | LA TERCERA GOOGLE PRUEBA CON REALIDAD AUMENTADA EN SUS MAPAS. Google anunció la llegada de la realidad aumentada a su sistema de navegación Google Maps, en su última Conferencia de Desarrolladores en 2018, y parece que estamos muy cerca de poder probarlo. Según reporta The Wall Street Journal, que ha probado la nueva función en fase beta, la opción de realidad virtual para Google Maps solamente estará disponible para los trayectos a pie. Gracias al periódico, que ha compartido un video mostrando el funcionamiento del nuevo sistema, podemos hacernos una idea de cómo funcionará. WSJ | HIPERTEXTUAL | FAYERWAYER ALICIA KEYS APROVECHA SU APARICIÓN EN LOS GRAMMY Y COMPARTE NUEVO TEMA MUSICAL. La actriz y compositora estadounidense Alicia Keys, ha compartido un nuevo tema titulado “Raise a Man”, aprovechando su gran domingo donde fue presentadora de los premios Grammy 2019. En los Grammy, Keys también hizo aparición para interpretar varias versiones musicales de distintos artistas, y además contó con una pequeña colaboración de Michelle Obama en dicha presentación. “Raise a Man” es el primer tema de Alicia Keys desde 2016 cuando publicó su disco ‘Here’. YOUTUBE Share on facebook Facebook Share on google Google+ Share on twitter Twitter Share on linkedin LinkedIn Share on whatsapp WhatsApp Te pedimos que te tomes un pequeño tiempo para responder a esta breve encuesta. Nos sirve para mejorar.

Topics Include: *Implications of the USMCA between the US, Canada, and Mexico *The importance of Robert Lighthizer’s role in US trade negotiations *Update on tensions between Russia and Ukraine *Russia’s “buffer states” of outlying countries *How Russia’s gas pipelines running through Ukraine are critical infrastructure *Why Russia purchasing close to 30 tons of gold per month is a strategic move *How a decentralized permissioned ledger cryptocurrency sponsored by Russia and or China and settled in physical gold could be the next system used by sovereigns to settle net trade balances without using the US dollar *Why Switzerland could be an ideal location to settle net payments in gold *Update on Saudi Arabia stability, succession, and world relations *Thoughts on the G20 upcoming meetings and trade negotiations *Update on Fed monetary policy and interest rates

听众朋友你好，欢迎收听浏览加广中文台的周末网络广播节目。在今天的节目时间里，我们为您选播一个星期以来的几篇报道。 欢迎网友和听友们发表评论和看法。我们的电子信箱是：China@rcinet.ca 我们的新浪微博是：“加拿大国际广播-中文”; 我们的网站是： www.rcinet.ca. 每周五北美东部时间上午10点半，我们会有脸书直播（Facebook Live）。我们的Facebook： 加拿大国际广播 – 加拿大国家中文频道。 https://www.facebook.com/282168941800250/videos/2108541709474829/ . 本周报道精选 特鲁多政府因难民问题再受抨击（方华） 特鲁多政府负责边境安全的部长Bill Blair 在议会为其信口开河言论道歉。（ CP/Adrian Wyld ） 近两年越过美国与加拿大边界大量涌入加拿大的难民申请者引起加拿大民众的关注。加拿大人不但关注政府如何对待这些非法越境难民申请者，而且关注如果其难民申请被拒、这些难民申请者是否会离开加拿大。按说最了解这方面情况的应该是联邦政府负责难民事务的官员，但恰恰是联邦政府负责处理非法越境难民申请者事务的部长的一席话引起了“炸锅”反应，受到联邦议会反对党的猛烈抨击。 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 加拿大争取安理会席位，在联大期间寻求支持（赵黎） （Radio Canada） 第 73 届联合国大会在联合国纽约总部举行，这个星期，加拿大总理总理贾斯汀·特鲁多 （Justin Trudeau）和加拿大的几位内阁部长都出席了会议。加拿大广播公司报道说，联大期间，加拿大代表团的幕后外交焦点，就是为加拿大争取在 2021 年至 2022 年期间的联合国安全理事会的席位。 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Adobe试图通过人工智统一体验经济和数据分析（沈二） Adobe作为世界级的软件公司著名的一直是其设计软件，例如图像设计软件“Photoshop”，视频设计软件“Premier”，以及电子文档软件...它的软件集形成了一个完整的面向“视觉设计”的体系。Adobe近5年不断重复的一个概念是“体验”。“体验”这个词既和设计相关，又带来了新的可能性。现在，Adobe应该是觉得时机成熟了，它带着努力了很久的人工智能系统“Adobe Sensie” 来到了数据的舞台。 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 特朗普修理特鲁多恐怕与中国有关（方华） （CP/Sean Kilpatrick） 在美国和加拿大修改北美自由贸易协议NAFTA的谈判似乎陷入僵局的情况下，美国总统特朗普继续宣称加拿大不让步就与墨西哥单独签署自由贸易协议，美国首席贸易谈判代表Robert Lighthizer则表示美国和加拿大离达成修改NAFTA的自由贸易协议还有很大的距离、加拿大在许多方面不愿意做出让步。 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 上个冬季美国八万人死于流感，加拿大是三百人（赵黎） （Radio-Canada/BERT SAVARD） 在2017-2018年的冬季，据估计有 80,000 名美国人死于流感及其并发症 ，这是 40 年来因流感死亡人数最多的一次。美国疾病控制和预防中心 CDC 主任罗伯特·雷德菲尔德医生（Robert Redfield）在本周二晚对美联社的记者透露了这一消息。 收听CH_Report_1-20180928-WRC10 一周图片报道 window.jQuery || document.write('

Para el columnista Lawrence Martin, quien escribe desde Washington para el Globe and Mail, “lo que pasó fue que Ottawa fue engañada y traicionada. Durante las conversaciones con México, los negociadores canadienses pidieron participar. La respuesta del representante de Comercio de Estados Unidos. Robert Lighthizer fue ‘no’.

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of the world's largest free trade zones at that time and arguably laying the foundations for strong economic growth and rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. However, since Donald Trump became US President last year, renegotiating NAFTA along with other trade deals, has been high on his agenda The original NAFTA took 14 months to negotiate and just as long to ratify. The current negotiations are into their eight month and of the roughly 30 chapters to complete, many are not agreed upon. That's too slow, current U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer, said at the close of a recent negotiating session in Mexico City. The Trump administration are hoping to complete negotiations by May, 2018 so the agreement can be ratified before the opposition Democrats have a chance to regain control of Congress and or the Senate in January 2019. Mexican presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could also hurt progress on a NAFTA deal if it's not completed soon, should he be elected later this year. The speaker will untangle the web of possible scenarios surrounding NAFTA negotiations and speculate on its final outcome, including the potential of Canada getting caught up in a trade war with US Speaker: Dr. Chris Kukucha Christopher J. Kukucha is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lethbridge. He is the author of The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy and a co-editor of several books including The Harper Era in Canadian Foreign Policy (Adam Chapnick), International Political Economy (Greg Anderson), and the third edition of Readings in Canadian Foreign Policy (Duane Bratt). Chris also served as the William J. Fulbright Research Chair in Canadian Studies at the State University of New York (Plattsburgh) and is a past President of the International Studies Association of Canada. Moderator: Austin Fennell Date: Thursday, April 26, 2018 Time: Doors open 11:30 am, Presentation 12 noon, buffet lunch 12:30 pm, Q&A 1 – 1:30 pm Location: Royal Canadian Legion (north door) 324 Mayor Magrath Dr. S. Lethbridge Cost: $14 buffet lunch with desert & coffee/tea/juice or $2 coffee/tea/juice. RSVP not required

President Trump won the presidency, at least in part, because of his messaging on trade. Robert Lighthizer, Trump's pick for U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), is likely to be among the officials charged with helping Trump implement his trade agenda. On this episode of The Manufacturing Report, host Scott Paul and Scott Boos, senior VP of Government Affairs and Policy at the Alliance for American Manufacturing, discuss what we can expect from Lighthizer and the Trump trade team.

With Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Peter Navarro at the new National Trade Council, and Robert Lighthizer as U.S. Trade Representative, Donald Trump has assembled a team aimed at protecting U.S. industry from competition. Dan Ikenson and Dan Mitchell comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.