Podcasts about smoot hawley

The Father of Reaganomics, David Stockman, joins us to explore the complex world of international trade and its impact on investors.  Key insights include: Challenging conventional wisdom about trade policies Understanding economic forces that drive investment opportunities Gaining expert perspective on global economic trends Stockman provides a candid analysis of current trade strategies, revealing: The true drivers of economic competitiveness Potential pitfalls of protectionist approaches Critical insights for strategic investors The episode cuts through political noise to offer clear, actionable economic intelligence for informed decision-making. Smart investors look beyond headlines to understand the deeper economic forces shaping their financial future. Resources: Check out David Stockman's Contra Corner Newsletter Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/553 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREinvestmentcoach.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai    Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, I sit down with a long time White House occupant who was the official economic advisor to an ex president. We get the real deal on tariffs and what they mean to you. Trump gets called out and the ominous sign about what's coming six months from now, today on, Get Rich Education.   Since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being the flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors and delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show guests include top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki. Get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast, or visit get rich education.com   Corey Coates  1:14   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  1:30   Welcome to GRE from Brookline, Massachusetts to Brooklyn, New York and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and you are listening to get rich education, just another shaved mammal behind this microphone here. I recently spent some time with the father of Reaganomics, David Stockman, in New York City, and sometimes an issue so critical surfaces that real estate investors need to step back and understand a broader force in the economy. Three weeks ago, here, I told you how the second and third way, real estate pays you. Cash flow and ROA are sourced by your tenants employment and the future of your tenants employment is influenced by tariffs and other policies of this presidential administration. This is going to affect rates of inflation and a whole lot of things. Now, an organization called the American Dialect Society, they actually name their word of the year, and this year, it is shaping up to be that word, tariff. In fact, Trump has described that word as the most beautiful word in the dictionary. And I think we all know by now that a tariff is an import tax that gets passed along to consumers when it comes to materials used in real estate construction that's going to affect future real estate prices. Well, several key ones so far were exempted from recent reciprocal tariffs, including steel, aluminum, lumber and copper exempted. Not everything was exempted, but those items and some others were but who knows if even they are going to stay that way. And now, when it comes to this topic. I think a lot of people want to make immediate overreactions in even posture like they're an expert in become an armchair economist, and I guess we all do a little of that, me included. But rather than being first on this and overreacting, let's let the policy which Trump called Liberation Day last month when he announced all these new tariffs. Let's let policy simmer a little and then bring in an expert that really knows what this means to the economy and real estate. So that's why I wanted to set up this discussion for your benefit with the father of Reaganomics and I today. In fact, what did Reagan himself say about tarrifs back in 1987 this is part of a clip that's gained new life this year. It's about a minute and a half.    Speaker 1  4:13   Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery. You see at first when someone says, Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while at work. Price, but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is first, home grown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition, so soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens, markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.    Keith Weinhold  5:50   Now, from what I can tell you as a listener in the GRE audience, maybe you're split on what you think about tariffs. In fact, we ran an Instagram poll. It asks, generally speaking, tariffs are good or bad? Simply that 40% of you said good, 60% bad. Over on LinkedIn, it was different. 52% said they're good, 48% bad. So it's nearly half and half. And rather than me taking a side here, I like to bring up points that support both sides, and then let our distinguished guests talk, since he's the expert. For example, if a foreign nation wants to access the world's largest economy, the United States, does it make sense for them to pay a fee? I mean, it works that way in a lot of places, when you want to list a product on eBay or Amazon, you pay them a fee. You pay a percentage of the list price in order to get access to a ready marketplace of qualified buyers. All right. Well, that's one side, but then the other side is, come on, let's look at history. Where have tariffs ever worked like Where have they ever been a resounding, long term success? Do they have any history of a sustained, good track record? I generally like free trade. Then let's understand there's something even worse than a steep tariff. There are quotas which are imposed, import limits, trade limits, and then there are even all out import bans. What do terrorists mean to the economy that you are going to live in and that your tenants live in? It's the father of Reaganomics, and I on that straight ahead on Get Rich Education. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold.   you know what's crazy? Your bank is getting rich off of you. The average savings account pays less than 1% it's like laughable. Meanwhile, if your money isn't making at least 4% you're losing to inflation. That's why I started putting my own money into the FFI liquidity fund. It's super simple. Your cash can pull in up to 8% returns, and it compounds. It's not some high risk gamble like digital or AI stock trading. It's pretty low risk because they've got a 10 plus year track record of paying investors on time in full every time. I mean, I wouldn't be talking about it if I wasn't invested myself. You can invest as little as 25k and you keep earning until you decide you want your money back, no weird lock ups or anything like that. So if you're like me and tired of your liquid funds just sitting there doing nothing, check it out. Text, family to 66866, to learn about freedom, family investments, liquidity fund, again. Text family to 6686   Hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine, at Ridge lending group and MLS, 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start Now while it's on your mind at Ridge lendinggroup.com, that's ridgelendinggroup.com.    Hey   Robert Helms  9:28   Hey everybody. It's Robert Helms of the real estate guys radio program. So glad you found Keith Weinhold in get rich education. Don't quit your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  9:48   when it comes to White House economic policy like tariffs, taxes and inflation, don't you wish you could talk to someone that's often been inside the White House. Today, we are even better. He was the official advisor to an ex president on economic affairs, a Wall Street and Washington insider and Harvard grad. Today's guest is also a former two time congressman from Michigan. He's a prolific author, and he is none other than the man known as the father of Reaganomics. He was indeed President Ronald Reagan's budget advisor. He was first with us last year, but so much has happened since. So welcome back to the show. David Stockman,    David Stockman  10:26   very good to be with you, and you're certainly right about that. I think we're really in uncharted waters. Who could have predicted where we are today, and therefore it's very hard to know where we're heading, but you have to try to peer through the fog and all the uncertainty and the noise and the, you know, day to day ups and downs that's coming from this White House in a way that we've never seen before. And I started on Capitol Hill in 1970 so I've been watching this, you know, for more than a half century, actually, quite a while. And man, it's important to go through all this, but it's sort of uncharted waters.    Keith Weinhold  11:04   Sure, it's sort of like you wake up every day and all you do know is that you don't know. And David, when it comes to tariffs, I want to give you my idea, and then I want to ask you about what the tariff objective even is. Now, to be sure, no one is asking me how to advise the President. I'm an international real estate investor, but I do most of my business in the US, and I sure don't have international trade policy experience. It seems better to me, David, that rather than shocking the world with new tariffs that kick in right away, it would have been better to announce that tariffs begin in, say, 90 days, and then give nations space to negotiate before they kick in. That's my prevailing idea. My question to you is, what's the real objective here? What are terrorists proposed to do? Raise revenue, onshore companies merely a negotiation tactic? Is the objective? Something else?    David Stockman  12:00   Well, it might be all of the above, but I think it's important to start with a predicate, and that is that the problem is not high tariffs abroad or cheating by foreign competitors or exporters. There is a huge problem of a chronic trade deficit that is not benign, that does reflect a tremendous offshoring of our industrial economy, the loss of good, high paying industrial and manufacturing jobs. So the issue is an important one to address, but I have to say, very clearly, Trump is 100% wrong when he attempts to address it with tariffs, because foreign tariffs aren't the problem. Let me just give a couple of pieces of data on this, and I've been doing a lot of research on this. If you take the top 51 exporters to the United States, our top 51 trade partners, and this is Mexico and Canada and the entire EU and it's all the big far eastern China, Japan, South Korea, India, you know, all the rest of them. If you look at the and that's 90% of our trade, we have 2.9 trillion of imports coming in from all of those countries, and the tariff that we Levy, this is the United States, on those imports, is not high. It's higher than it was in the past, mainly because of what Trump did in the first term, but it's 3.9% now compared to bad times historically, decades and decades ago. That's relatively low. But here's the key point, if we look at the same 51 trading partners in terms of the tariffs they levy on our exports to China and to the EU and to Canada and Mexico and South Korea and all the rest of them. The tariff average, weighted average that they levy is 2.1% so let me restate that the average US tariff is about twice as high 4% around things as what our partners imposed 2% now the larger point is whether it's 4% or 2% doesn't make a better difference. That's not a problem when it comes to 33 trillion of world trade of which we are, you know, the United States engages in about five and a half trillion of that on a two way basis, import, export, in the nexus of a massive global trading system. So he's off base. He's wrong. The target is not high tariffs or unfair foreign trade. Now there are some people who say, Well, you're looking at monetary tariffs. So in other words, the import duty they levy on, you know, exports to South Korea or India or someplace like that, right? And that, the real issue, supposedly, is non tariff barriers. For instance, you know, some governments require you that all procurement by government agencies has to be sourced from a domestic supplier, which automatically shuts out us suppliers who might want that business. Well, the problem is we're the biggest violator of the non tariff barrier in that area. In other words, we have something like $900 billion worth of state, federal and local procurement that's under Buy America policies, which means EU, Mexico, Canada, China, none of them can compete. Now I mention that only as one example, because it's the kind of classic non tariff barrier, as opposed to import duty that some people point to, or they point to the fact that while foreign countries allegedly manipulate their currency, but you know the answer to that is that number one, overwhelming, no doubt about it, largest currency manipulator in the world, is the Federal Reserve. Okay, so it's kind of hard to say that there's a unfair trade problem in the world because of currency manipulation. And then there is, you know, an argument. Well, foreign governments subsidize their exporters. They subsidize their industrial companies, and therefore they can sell things cheaper. And therefore that's another example of unfair trade, but the biggest subsidizer of tech industry, and of a lot of other basic industry in the United States is is the Defense Department. You know, we have a trillion dollar defense budget, and we put massive amounts of dollars in, not only to buying, you know, hardware and weapons and so forth, but huge amounts of R and D that go into developing cutting edge technologies that have a lot of civilian applications that, in fact, we see all over the world. That's why we're doing this broadcast right now. The point is that problem is not high tariffs because they're only low tariffs. The problem is not unfair trade, because there's all kinds of minor little interferences with pure free markets, but both, everybody violates those one way or another due to domestic politics. But it's not a big deal. It doesn't make that big a difference. So therefore, why do we have a trillion dollar trade deficit in the most recent year, and a trade deficit of that magnitude that's been pretty continuous since the 1970s the answer is three or four blocks from the White House, not 10,000 miles away in Beijing or Tokyo. The answer is the Federal Reserve has in the ELLs building there in DC, not far from the White House. Yes, yes, right there, okay, the Eccles building the Fed has a huge, persistent pro inflation bias, sure. And as a result of that, it is pushed the wage levels and the price levels and the cost levels of the US economy steadily higher, and therefore we've become less and less competitive with practically everybody, but certainly a lower wage countries nearby, like Mexico or China, far away. And you know, there's, it's not that simple of just labor costs and wages, because, after all, if you source from China, you've got to ship things 10,000 miles. You've got supply chain management issues, you've got quality control issues, you've got timeliness issues. You have inventory carry costs, because there's a huge pipeline, and of course, you have the actual freight cost of bringing all those containers over. But nevertheless, when you factor all that in, our trade problem is our costs are too high, and that is a function of the pro inflation policies of the Fed. Give one example. Go back just to the period when the economy was beginning to recover, right after the great recession. And you know the crisis of 208209 and I started 210 unit labor costs in manufacturing in the United States. Just from 210 that's only 15 years, are up 55% that's unit labor costs. In other words, if you take wage costs and you subtract productivity growth in that 15 year period, the net wage costs less productivity growth, which is what economists call unit labor costs, are up 53% and as a result of that, we started, you know, maybe with a $15 wage difference between the United States and.China back in the late 1990s that wage gap today is $30 in other words, the fully loaded way at cost of average wages in the United States. And I'm talking about not just the pay envelope, but also the payroll taxes, the you know, charge for pension expense, health care and so forth. The whole fully loaded cost to an employer is about $40 an hour, and it's about $10 in the United States and it's about $10 an hour in China. Now that's the reason why we have a huge trade deficit with China, because of the massive cost difference, and it's not because anybody's cheating. Is because the Fed, in its wisdom, decided, well, you know, everybody will be okay. We're going to inflate the economy at 2% a year. That's their target. It's not like, well, we're trying to get low inflation or zero inflation, but we're not quite making it. No, they're proactive. Answer is, we've got to have 2% or the economy is not going to work. Well, well, 2% sounds well, that's a trivial little number. However, when you do it year after year, decade after decade, for a long period of time, and the other side is not inflating at the same rate, then in dollar terms, you have a problem, and that's where we are today. So this is important to understand, because it means the heart of the whole Trump economic policy, which is trying to bring manufacturing home, trying to bring industry back to the United States, a laudable objective is based on a false diagnosis of why this happened, and it is unleashed ball in the china shop, disruption of global economic flows in relationships that are going to cause unmitigated problems, even disaster in the US economy. Because it's too subtle, when you think about it, the world trade system just goods. Now, we've not even talking about services yet, or capital flows or financing on a short term basis. The World Trade in goods, merchandise, goods only is now 33 trillion. That is a hell of a lot of activity of parts and pieces and raw materials and finished products flowing in. You know, impossible to imagine directions back and forth between dozens and dozens of major economies and hundreds overall. And when you start, you step into that, not with a tiny little increase in the tariff. To give somebody a message. You know, if our tariffs are averaging 4% that's what I gave you a little while ago. And you raise tariffs to 20% maybe that's a message. But Trump didn't do that. He raised the tariff on China to 145% in other words, let's just take one example of a practical product, almost all the small appliances that you can find in Target or even a higher end retail stores United States or on Amazon are sourced in China because of this cost differential. I've been talking about this huge wage differential. So over the last 20, 25, years, little it went there now 80% of all small appliances are now sourced in China, and one, you know, good example would be a microwave oven, and a standard one with not a lot of fancy bells and whistles, is $100 now, when you put 145% tariff on the $100 landed microwave oven is now $245 someone's going to say, Gee, are we going to be able to sell microwaves at $245 they're not certain. I'm talking about a US importer. I'm talking about someone who sells microwaves on Amazon, for instance, or the buyers at Walmart or Target, or the rest of them, they're going to say, wait a minute, maybe we ought to hold off our orders until we see how this is going to shake out. And Trump says he's going to be negotiating, which is another whole issue that we'll get into. It's a lot of baloney. He has no idea what he's doing. Let's just face the facts about this. So if orders are suddenly cut back, and the flow that goes on day in and day out across the Pacific into the big ports in Long Beach in Los Angeles is suddenly disrupted, not in a small way, but in a big way, by 20, 30, 40, 50% six or seven months down the road, we're going to have empty shelves. We're going to have empty warehouses. We're going to have sellers who suddenly realize there's such a scarcity of products that have been hit by this blunderbuss of tariffs that we can double our price and get away with it.   Keith Weinhold  25:00   Okay, sure. I mean, ports are designed. Ports are set up for stadium flows, not for surges, and then walls and activity. That just really doesn't work.   David Stockman  25:08   And let me just get in that, because you're on a good point. In other words, there is a complicated supply line, supply chain, where, you know, stuff is handed off, one hand to another, ports in China, shipping companies, ports here, rail distribution systems, regional warehouses of you know, people like Walmart and so forth, that whole supply chain is going to be hit with a shock. Everything is going to be uncertain in terms of the formulas that everybody uses right now, you know that you sell 100 units a week, so you got to replace them at the sales rate, and you put your orders in, and know that it takes six weeks to get here, and all this other stuff, all of the common knowledge that's in the supply chain that makes it work, and the handoffs smooth and efficient From one player in the supply chain to the next, it's all going to be disrupted. But the one thing we're going to have is we're going to have shortages, we're going to have empty shelves, and we're going to have price which I'm sure that Trump is not going to start saying price gouging of a you know, right? But that's not price gouging. If you have a you know, go to Florida. We have a hurricane. Where we live in Florida and New York, we have a hurricane. All of a sudden the shelves are empty and there's no goods around, because everybody's been stocking up getting ready for the storm. And then all of a sudden, the politicians are yelling that somebody's price gouging, because they raised their prices in a market that was in disequilibrium. Well, that's not price gouging. That's supply and demand trying to find a new balance basic economics. You know, when the demand is 100 and the supply is 35 okay, but I'm kind of getting ahead here, but I think there's very good likelihood that there's going to be a human cry right before, you know, maybe in the fall or right before Christmas, about price gouging and Trump then saying, Well, I was elected to bring prices down and bring inflation under control. It's out of control because all of these foreigners raised their prices. And no, they did, and it was the tariff that did it, and all the people in the supply chain are trying to take advantage of the temporary disruptions. So I think people have to understand, and I can't say this, and I don't like to say it, because I certainly didn't think the other candidate in the last election had anything to offer in terms of dealing with our serious economic problems in this country. I'm talking about Harris. But the fact is, Donald Trump has had a wrong idea for the last 40 to 50 years of his adult life. In that core idea is that trade deficits are a sign of the other side cheating. They're a sign that you're being exploited or taken advantage of or ripped off, or it's not at all okay. Trade deficits are a consequence of cost differences between different jurisdictions, and to the extent that we've artificially, unnecessarily inflated our costs. We need to fix the problem at the source. He ought to clean house at the Federal Reserve. But the problem is, Trump wants lower interest rates when, in fact, the low interest rates created all the inflation that led to our loss of competitiveness and the huge trade deficits we have today. So to summarize, it is important to understand, do not have faith in Trump's promise that we're going to have a golden age of economic prosperity. We are going to have a economic disaster, and it's a unforced error. It's self inflicted, and it's the result of the wrong fundamental idea of one guy who's in the oval office right now throwing his considerable weight around and pushing the economy into upheaval that really is totally unnecessary. He should have done what he was elected to do, and Matt's work on getting production up and costs down, that's not going to be solved with tariffs. David, I have another important point to bring up. But before we do just quickly, are those two to 4% tariffs you mentioned earlier. Those are the tariff levels pre Trump second term correct.    We could clarify that those are for the year 2023 that was the latest full year data that we have with great deal of granularity.    Keith Weinhold  29:56   The point I want to bring up is there any history? That tariffs actually work. Some people cite the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act from the 1930s and that it drove us deeper into the Great Depression. And David, on the one hand, when we think about, do tariffs actually work? If Indonesia can make shoes for us for $11 why would we want to onshore an activity like that? That is a good deal for us. And then, on the other hand, you have someone like Nvidia, the world's leading semiconductor company, they announced plans to produce some of their AI supercomputers entirely on American soil for the first time recently. And you have some other companies that have made similar announcements. So that's a small shred of evidence that tariffs could work. But my question is, historically, do tariffs actually work?    David Stockman  30:44   That's a great question, and there's a huge history. And you can go back all the way the 19th century, where Donald Trump seems to be preoccupied, but what he fails to recognize is that they worked in the 19th century because they were revenue tariffs. It wasn't an effort to, like, bring jobs back to America. We were booming at the time. Jobs were coming to America, not leaving, and it was the federal government's main source of revenue. Because, as you know, prior to 1913 there was no income tax, right? So that was one thing. Okay, then when we got into the 20th century and host World War Two, it became obvious to people that the whole idea of comparative advantage, going all the way back to Adam Smith, and that enhanced a global trade where people could specialize in whatever their more competitive advantage is, was a Good thing. And so we had round after round of negotiations after World War Two that reduced tariff levels steadily, year by year, decade by decade. So by the time we got to the 1990s when China, then, you know, arose from the disaster of Mao and Mr. Dang took over and created all the export factories and said, It's glorious to be rich and all these things is we got red capitalism. But if we start in the 1990s the average tariff worldwide, now this is weighted average on all goods that are bought and sold or imported and exported, was about 9% and there were have been various free trade deals done since then. For instance, we had NAFTA, and the tariffs on Mexico and Canada and the United States went to zero. We had a free trade deal in 212 with South Korea. This never comes up, but the tariff on South Korean goods coming the US is zero. The tariff on us, exports going to South Korea is zero because we have a free trade agreement, and it's worked out pretty well with South Korea. Now we're not the only ones doing this. Countries all over the world. The EU is a total free trade zone in economy almost as big as the United States that used to have tariff levels between countries. Now it's one big free trade zone. So if you take the entire world economy, that 9% weighted average tariff of the early 90s, which was down from maybe 2025, 30, pre World War Two in this Smoot Hawley era, was down to 2.25% by the time that Donald Trump took office, the first time around in 2017 now 2.25% is really a rounding error. It's hardly when you have $33 trillion worth of goods moving around, you know, container ships and bulk carriers and so forth all around the world, and air freight and the rest of it, rail. 2% tariff is not any kind of big deal, as I say in some of the things I write, it's not a hill of beans. So somehow, though 45 years ago, Trump got the idea that tariffs were causing a problem and that we had trade deficits, not because our costs were going up owing to bad monetary policy, but because the other guy was cheating. Remember, this is Trump's whole view of the world. It's a zero sum game. I win, you lose, and if I'm not winning, is because you're cheating. Okay? In other words, I'm inherently going to win. America's inherently going to win unless the other guy is cheating. Now, Trump sees the world the same way that I think he looked at electrical and plumbing contractors in the Bronx, you know, in the 1980s and 1990s when he was developing his various Real Estate projects. These are pretty rough and tumble guys. It's a wild, easy way to make a living. So there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of pretty rough baseball that's played that mentality that the other guy is always trying to screw me, the other guy's always cheating, the other guy's preventing me from winning, is, is his basic mentality. And it's not Applicable. It's not useful at all to try to understand the global economy. Try to understand why America's $29 trillion economy is not chugging along as strongly and as productively as it should be, why real wages are not making the gains that workers should be experiencing and so forth. So he ought to get out of this whole trade, tariff trade war thing, which he started, I don't know how he does, it's a little late, and focus on the problems on the home front. In other words, our trade problem has been caused by too much spending, too much borrowing, too much money printing on the banks of the Potomac. It's not basically caused in Beijing or Tokyo or Seoul or even Brussels, the European Union. And we need to get back to the basic and the real culprit, which is the Federal Reserve and its current chairman, Paul, if he wants to attack somebody, go after the Fed. Go after Paul. But ought to give them a mandate to bring inflation to zero and to stop fooling around with everything else and to stop monetizing the public debt that is buying government debt, take care of your own backyard first before you start taking, yeah, sure, yeah, exactly. You know, I've been in this for a long time. I start, as I said, I started on Capitol Hill. There have been a lot of protectionist politicians, but they always argued free trade is good, but it has to be fair trade. And you know, we have this example in our steel industry, for instance, where we producers abroad are competing unfairly for one reason or another. But the point I'm getting to is they always said this is an exceptional case. Normally we would go for free trade, but we got to have protection here. We got to have a temporary quota. Even when I was in the Reagan administration, we had a big argument about voluntary quotas on Japanese car exports, and I was totally against it. I thought the US industry needed to get its act together, get its costs down. Needed to get the UAW under control, because it had pushed wages, you know, way, way, way too high terms of total cost. But they argued, yeah, well, you're right, but we have to have 10 years in order to allow things to be improved and adjusted and catch up. So this is only temporary. This is just this. Yes, this is protectionism, but it's temporary. It's expedient that we can avoid and so therefore we'll make an exception. But there is no one, and most of these people were, you know, in the payroll of the unions, or they were congressmen from south to South Carolina going to bad for the textile industry, or congressman from Ohio going to bat for the steel industry, whatever, but there was no one who ever came along and said tariffs are big, beautiful things, and we need to have permanent high tariffs, because that's the way we're going to get prosperity back in United States. It's a dumb idea. It's wrong. It's disproven by history and people. Even though Trump has done a lot of things that I like you know, he's got rid of dei he's got rid of all of this green energy, climate crisis nonsense, all of that that he's done is to the good when you come to this basic question, how do we get prosperity in America? The answer is, through free market capitalism, by getting the government out of the way, by balancing the budget and by telling the Fed not to, you know, inflate the economy to the disadvantage that it has today. That's how you get there. And Trump is not a real Republican. Trump is basically what I call a status. He's for big government, right wing status. Okay, there's left wing, Marxist status, then there's right wing status. But you know, all of this tariff business is going to create so much corruption that it's almost impossible to imagine, because every day there's someone down there, right now, I can guarantee it at the, you know, treasury department or at Commerce department saying, but we got special circumstances here in terms of the parts that we're making for aircraft that get assembled in South Korea or something, and we need special relief. Yes, every industry you're doing is putting in for everybody's going to be there the lobby. This is the greatest dream that the Washington lobbyist community ever had. Trump is literally saying he put this reciprocal tariff. You saw the whole schedule. That he had on that easel in the White House on April 2, immigration day. It was called Liberation Day. I called it Demolition Derby Day. There was a reciprocal tariff for every single country in the world based on a phony formula that said, if we have $100 million deficit with somebody, half of that was caused by cheating. So we're going to put a tariff in place closes half of the difference. I mean, just nonsense, Schoolboy idiocy. Now it is. I mean, I know everybody said, Oh, isn't it great? We've finally got rid of the bad guys, Biden, he's terrible, and the Democrats, I agree with all that, but we replaced one set of numb skulls with another set. Unfortunately, Republicans know better, but they're so intimidated, apparently buffaloed by Trump at the moment, that they're going along with this. But they know you don't put 145%tariff on anything. I mean, it's just nuts. David, I feel like you're telling us what you really think and absolutely love that.    Keith Weinhold  41:04   Interestingly, there is a Ronald Reagan clip about tariffs out there in a speech that he gave from Camp David, and it's something that's really had new life lately. In fact, we played the audio of that clip before you came onto the show today, Reagan said that he didn't like tariffs and that they hurt every American worker and consumer as Reagan's economic advisor in the White House. Did you advise him on that?    David Stockman  41:27   Yes, I did. And also I can give you a little anecdote that I think people will find interesting. Yeah, the one time that he deviated in a big way from his free trade commitments was when he put the voluntary export quota on the Japanese auto industry. That was big. I don't remember the exact number, but I think it said they couldn't export more than 1.2 million cars a year, or something like that the United States. And the number was supposed to adjust over time, but we had huge debates in the Cabinet Room about those things, and at the end of the day, here's what he said. He said, You know, I've always been for open trade, free trade. I've always felt it has to be fair trade. But, you know, in this case, the Japanese industry came to us and asked for voluntary quotas, so I didn't put up a trade barrier. I'm only accommodating their request. Well, the Japanese did come to him and ask. They did, but only when they were put up to it by the protectionists in the Reagan administration who, on this took them on the side, you know, their negotiators and maybe their foreign minister. I can't remember exactly who commerce secretary and said, If you don't ask for voluntary quotas, we're going to unleash Capitol Hill and you're going to get a real nasty wall put up against your car. So what will it be? Do you want to front for voluntary quotas? Are we going to unleash Congress? So they came to Reagan and said they were the Japanese industry said they're recommending that he impose voluntary restraints on auto exports. That was just a ruse. He wasn't naive, but he believed what you told him. He believed that everybody was honest like he was, and so he didn't understand that the Japanese industry that was brought to meet with him in the Oval Office had been put up to, it been threatened with, you know, something far worse, mandatory quote is imposed by Congress. But anyway, it's a little anecdote. What happened? On the other hand, he continued to articulate the case for small government sound money. We had deficit problems, but he always wanted a balanced budget. It was just hard to get there politically. And he believed that capitalism produces prosperity if you let capitalism work and keep the government out of the marketplace. And there is no bigger form of intervention and meddling and disruption in the capitalist system, in the free market, in the marketplace, than quotas on every product in every country at different levels. They're going to have 150 different countries negotiating bilaterally deals with the United States. That's the first thing that's ridiculous. They can't happen. The second thing is they're going to come up with deals that don't amount to a hill of beans, but they'll say, we have a deal. The White House will claim victory. Let me just give one example. As we know, one of the big things that Trump did in the first administration was he renegotiated NAFTA. And NAFTA was the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, United States. Before he started in 2017 the trade deficit of the US with Mexico and Canada combined with 65 billion. And he said, That's too big, and we got to fix NAFTA. We have got to rebalance the provisions so that the US comes out, not on the short end of the stick 65 billion. So they negotiated for about a year and a half, they announced a new deal, which he then renamed the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement, usmca, and, you know, made a big noise about it, but it was the same deal with the new name. They didn't change more than 2% of the underlying machinery and structure, semantics. Well now, so now we fast forward to 2024 so the usmca Trump's pride and joy, his the kind of deal that he says he's going to seek with every country in the world is now four years into effect. And what is the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico today, it's 230 5 billion okay? It's four times higher now than it was then when he put it in place. Why? Because we have a huge trade deficit with Mexico. Why because, you know, average wages there are less than $10 an hour, and they're $40 an hour here. That's why it has nothing to do with a bad trade deal. It has to do with cost differences.    Keith Weinhold  46:27   David, this has been great, and as we're winding down here, we have a lot of real estate investor listeners tell us what this administration's overall policies, not just tariffs, but overall policies, mean for future employment, and then tell us about your highly regarded contra corner newsletter.    David Stockman  46:45   Well, those are that's a big question. I think it doesn't mean good, because if they were really trying to get America back on track our economy, they would be fighting inflation tooth and nail to get it down to zero. They would be working day and night to implement what Musk came up with in the doge that is big spending cuts and balancing the budget. They're not doing that. They're letting all these announcements being made, but they're not actually cutting any spending. They would not be attempting to impose this huge apparatus of tariffs on the US economy, but they're not doing that. So I'm not confident we were going in the wrong direction under Biden, for sure, and we're going in an even worse direction right now under Trump. So that's the first thing. The second thing is, I put out a daily newsletter called David stockman's Country corner. You can yes signers on the internet, but this is what we write about every day, and I say A plague on both their houses, the Democrats, the Republicans. They're all, in many ways, just trying to justify government meddling, government spending, government borrowing, government money printing, when we would do a lot better if we went in the opposite direction, sound money, balanced budgets, free markets and so forth, so. And in the process, I'm not partisan. You know, I was a Republican congressman. I was a budget director of the Reagan administration. I have been more on the Republican side, obviously, over my career than the Democrats, but now I realize that both parties are part of the problem, and I call it the uni party when push comes to shove, the uni party has basically been for a lot of wars abroad and a lot of debt at home, and a lot of meddling in the economy That was unnecessary. So if you look at what I write every day, it tries to help people see through the pretenses and the errors of the unit party, Democrats and Republicans. And in the present time, I have to focus on Trump, because Trump is making all the noise.    Keith Weinhold  48:59   100% Yes, it sure has kept life and the news cycle exciting, whether someone likes that news or not. Well, David, this has been great. In fact, it sounds a lot like what Reagan might have told me, perhaps because you were a chief economic informant for him, smaller government, letting the free trade flow and lower inflation. Be sure to check out David stockman's contra corner newsletter if you like what we've been talking about today, just like it was last year, David, it's been a real pleasure having you on GRE today.    David Stockman  49:30   Well, thank you very much. And these are important issues, and we've got to stay on top of them.   Keith Weinhold  49:41   Oh, yeah. Well, David Stockman truly no mincing words. He doesn't like tariffs. In summary, telling GRE listeners that the problem with trade imbalances is inflation attack that instead quell inflation, don't impose tariffs. A lot of developing nations and China have distinct advantages over manufacturing in the United States, besides having the trained labor and all the factories and systems in place, think about how many of these nations have built in lower costs they don't have to deal with these regulatory agencies, no EPA, no OSHA, and not even a minimum wage law to have to comply with. And here in the US get this, 80% of American workers agree that the US would benefit from more manufacturing jobs, but almost 75% disagree that they would personally be better off working in a factory themselves. That's according to a joint Cato Institute in YouGov survey. It's sort of like how last century, Americans lamented the demise of the family farm, yeah, but yet, they sure didn't want to work on a farm themselves. Now there are some types of manufacturing, like perhaps pharmaceuticals or computer chips that could likely be onshore, because those items are high value items. Their value can exceed the cost of being produced in the USA, but a lot of these factory goods, not again. If these topics interest you do a search for David stockman's contra corner, or you can directly visit David stockman's contra corner.com. Big thanks to the father of Reaganomics, David Stockman on the show this week. As for next week, we're back more toward the center of real estate investing. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream. Y   Unknown Speaker  51:42   nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC   Keith Weinhold  52:02   You know, whenever you want the best written real estate and finance info, oh, geez, today's experience limits your free articles access and it's got paywalls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers, it's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters. And I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point because even the word abbreviation is too long. My letter usually takes less than three minutes to read, and when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called The Don't quit your Daydream. Letter, it wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now. Just text GRE to 66866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text GRE to 66866   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com.  

Trump's tariffs, a dangerous mix of elitism, government overreach, and constitutional betrayal. Choose liberty, not their forced austerity.  The hive mind of a free marketplace outsmarts any Oval Office “stable genius” — let freedom reign! What Made America Great and Why It's Not So Great Anymore     Was America made great by taxes and regulations?  Conservatives are pushing forced austerity for Trump but it was liberty FROM government that Made America Great     From 56% to 4%: The Staggering Collapse of American-Made Clothes…and what did government do to cause it? Washington, Not China or ANY Foreign Government, is the True Enemy of American Freedom     Is American crony capitalism patriotic?       Are American billionaires teamed with government better than the Chinese equivalent? Trump says “Let Them Eat Cake”: Your Children Don't Need Cheap Dolls or PencilsTrump has decided that you should have fewer choices that are more expensive. Who is he to decide? With Melania's $35,000 purse in the spotlight, is this a “let them eat cake” moment? States Strike Back: 13 States Sue Trump Over Tariff Tyranny.  Do They Have a Case?Is his emergency declaration a power grab, and will the courts stop him?  Here's both sides… Smoot-Hawley 2.0? Forget the Ferris Bueller lecture.  This is what the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was about and how it tanked the economy.  Will history rhyme?55:43How Many Times Do Trump & His People Have to Tell You “You'll Be Happier If You're Poor” Before You Realize THEY WANT YOU TO OWN NOTHING     Shipping company CEO says Trump's tariffs, if not ended, will arrive like an asteroid strike, an extinction level event for small businesses that may be finally put out of business as Trump does “non-essential 2.0”.     As a consumer you may not be able to afford a $250 toaster, but Trump's administration says you'll be happier if his pals can move the toaster factory back to America and get richer quicker.  It's the Trump versions of Klaus Schwab's “own nothing, be happy” 1:19:56 Winning?  Not Just Canada, But Now Australia Sees Blowback Against Conservatives Because of Trump 1:34:02 Driverless Semi's — No Human Co-Pilot — Hit the Road in Texas 1:41:31 Venice is Sinking — and it's man-made, but NOT climate 1:48:34 Media Panic & Fear About Measles — But Their Own Stats Contradict Them 1:57:56 Tulsi & RFKj Start New Push to Sell “Lab Leak”They said their primary mission was to restore “trust” in their institutions. 2:04:24 Zelensky's Drone Blitz on Sacred Churches and Israel's Starvation Siege: The War on Civilians EscalatesThe world is spiraling into chaos as warfare turns even more vicious.     Ukrainian drones, under Zelensky's command, are ruthlessly targeting Russia's historic Orthodox churches, burning sacred sites to ashes in a chilling assault on faith and culture.     Yemen's relentless missile strikes with civilian lives as “collateral damage”     Meanwhile, Israel bombs a humanitarian flotilla carrying food and medicine to starving Gazans, leaving children to suffer in a brutal blockade.  Is this the dawn of a new era where sacred spaces and starving innocents are just pawns in a deadly game? 2:31:48 Trump “Follow the Constitution” Comment: The Problem is NOT What Media Says     Trump's comments weren't about whether he must follow the Constitution but about whether foreign citizens, legal or illegal, have rights.     Here's why we don't need to destroy the Constitution to deport millions of illegals. 2:47:33 Can The President Refuse to Spend Money Congress Approved?What court decisions and experience tell us (two very different things) 2:53:37 Trump's Imperial Ambitions & Pentagon's Duplicitous Panama MOUTrump refuses to rule out using military force to seize Greenland, hinting at “cherishing” its tiny population while eyeing it for “national security.” But the shocks don't stop there— two-faced Panama memorandums that say one thing in Spanish and another in English with the English version now embargoed.If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show  Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7 Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT For 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Trump's tariffs, a dangerous mix of elitism, government overreach, and constitutional betrayal. Choose liberty, not their forced austerity.  The hive mind of a free marketplace outsmarts any Oval Office “stable genius” — let freedom reign! What Made America Great and Why It's Not So Great Anymore     Was America made great by taxes and regulations?  Conservatives are pushing forced austerity for Trump but it was liberty FROM government that Made America Great     From 56% to 4%: The Staggering Collapse of American-Made Clothes…and what did government do to cause it? Washington, Not China or ANY Foreign Government, is the True Enemy of American Freedom     Is American crony capitalism patriotic?       Are American billionaires teamed with government better than the Chinese equivalent? Trump says “Let Them Eat Cake”: Your Children Don't Need Cheap Dolls or PencilsTrump has decided that you should have fewer choices that are more expensive. Who is he to decide? With Melania's $35,000 purse in the spotlight, is this a “let them eat cake” moment? States Strike Back: 13 States Sue Trump Over Tariff Tyranny.  Do They Have a Case?Is his emergency declaration a power grab, and will the courts stop him?  Here's both sides… Smoot-Hawley 2.0? Forget the Ferris Bueller lecture.  This is what the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was about and how it tanked the economy.  Will history rhyme?55:43How Many Times Do Trump & His People Have to Tell You “You'll Be Happier If You're Poor” Before You Realize THEY WANT YOU TO OWN NOTHING     Shipping company CEO says Trump's tariffs, if not ended, will arrive like an asteroid strike, an extinction level event for small businesses that may be finally put out of business as Trump does “non-essential 2.0”.     As a consumer you may not be able to afford a $250 toaster, but Trump's administration says you'll be happier if his pals can move the toaster factory back to America and get richer quicker.  It's the Trump versions of Klaus Schwab's “own nothing, be happy” 1:19:56 Winning?  Not Just Canada, But Now Australia Sees Blowback Against Conservatives Because of Trump 1:34:02 Driverless Semi's — No Human Co-Pilot — Hit the Road in Texas 1:41:31 Venice is Sinking — and it's man-made, but NOT climate 1:48:34 Media Panic & Fear About Measles — But Their Own Stats Contradict Them 1:57:56 Tulsi & RFKj Start New Push to Sell “Lab Leak”They said their primary mission was to restore “trust” in their institutions. 2:04:24 Zelensky's Drone Blitz on Sacred Churches and Israel's Starvation Siege: The War on Civilians EscalatesThe world is spiraling into chaos as warfare turns even more vicious.     Ukrainian drones, under Zelensky's command, are ruthlessly targeting Russia's historic Orthodox churches, burning sacred sites to ashes in a chilling assault on faith and culture.     Yemen's relentless missile strikes with civilian lives as “collateral damage”     Meanwhile, Israel bombs a humanitarian flotilla carrying food and medicine to starving Gazans, leaving children to suffer in a brutal blockade.  Is this the dawn of a new era where sacred spaces and starving innocents are just pawns in a deadly game? 2:31:48 Trump “Follow the Constitution” Comment: The Problem is NOT What Media Says     Trump's comments weren't about whether he must follow the Constitution but about whether foreign citizens, legal or illegal, have rights.     Here's why we don't need to destroy the Constitution to deport millions of illegals. 2:47:33 Can The President Refuse to Spend Money Congress Approved?What court decisions and experience tell us (two very different things) 2:53:37 Trump's Imperial Ambitions & Pentagon's Duplicitous Panama MOUTrump refuses to rule out using military force to seize Greenland, hinting at “cherishing” its tiny population while eyeing it for “national security.” But the shocks don't stop there— two-faced Panama memorandums that say one thing in Spanish and another in English with the English version now embargoed.If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show  Or you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764 Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7 Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT For 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Chaque fois que l'Amérique ferme une frontière, la mafia ouvre un tunnel. Les droits de douane imposés par Donald Trump représentent une véritable aubaine pour le crime organisé. C'est ce que souligne le journaliste italien Roberto Saviano dans une tribune incisive publiée dans le Financial Times. En avril dernier, le président américain a remis en marche sa machine à tarifs punitifs, relançant de facto une guerre commerciale tous azimuts. Objectif affiché : protéger l'industrie américaine. Mais un effet collatéral majeur apparaît : la hausse des prix stimule le « marché gris ». Et lorsque celui-ci ne suffit plus, c'est le marché noir qui prend le relais, avec ses logisticiens de l'illégal, ses routes bien huilées et ses milliards circulant hors TVA et droits de douane. Les filières utilisées pour faire entrer de faux sacs à main ou de la cocaïne sont désormais prêtes à écouler des marchandises légales mais surtaxées. La mafia n'a même plus besoin de s'adapter : elle se contente d'élargir ses palettes. Les ports les plus efficaces deviennent aussi les plus vulnérables. Long Beach, Houston, Savannah : ces hubs logistiques prisés pour leur rapidité se transforment en failles pour les services douaniers. Trump ne voit-il pas que ces tarifs nourrissent le crime organisé ? Ou peut-être le voit-il parfaitement, suggère Saviano. Peut-être cette contrebande l'arrange-t-elle, car elle permet aux entreprises américaines de rester compétitives tout en maintenant un levier politique contre les pays ciblés par les sanctions. Officiellement, on ferme la porte ; officieusement, on laisse la fenêtre ouverte. Mots-clés : protection policière, Gomorra, livre, Camorra, ZeroZeroZero, business model, ombre, barrière, augmentation, inflation, embargo act, 1807, Thomas Jefferson, contrebande, canada, vermont, Grande Dépression, Smoot-Hawley, opportunité, commerce, carrelage, textile, électronique, corruption, rapidité, express, theorie, malaisie, condamnation, pétrole, cargaison, utah, cartel mexicain, avocat, mafia new-yorkaise, mentor, loi, devise, Roy Cohn --- La chronique économique d'Amid Faljaoui, tous les jours à 8h30 et à 17h30. Merci pour votre écoute Pour écouter Classic 21 à tout moment i: https://www.rtbf.be/radio/liveradio/classic21 ou sur l'app Radioplayer Belgique Retrouvez tous les épisodes de La chronique économique sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/802 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Découvrez nos autres podcasts : Le journal du Rock : https://audmns.com/VCRYfsPComic Street (BD) https://audmns.com/oIcpwibLa chronique économique : https://audmns.com/NXWNCrAHey Teacher : https://audmns.com/CIeSInQHistoires sombres du rock : https://audmns.com/ebcGgvkCollection 21 : https://audmns.com/AUdgDqHMystères et Rock'n Roll : https://audmns.com/pCrZihuLa mauvaise oreille de Freddy Tougaux : https://audmns.com/PlXQOEJRock&Sciences : https://audmns.com/lQLdKWRCook as You Are: https://audmns.com/MrmqALPNobody Knows : https://audmns.com/pnuJUlDPlein Ecran : https://audmns.com/gEmXiKzRadio Caroline : https://audmns.com/WccemSkAinsi que nos séries :Rock Icons : https://audmns.com/pcmKXZHRock'n Roll Heroes: https://audmns.com/bXtHJucFever (Erotique) : https://audmns.com/MEWEOLpEt découvrez nos animateurs dans cette série Close to You : https://audmns.com/QfFankxDistribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

David talks to historian Gary Gerstle about the last time the Republican party got caught up in a tariffs disaster and how it changed American politics. The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 brought tariffs back and helped bring down both the Republican Party and the global economy. Why didn't Hoover stop it? What did the fiasco reveal about the limits of presidential power back then? And what does it suggest about the limits of presidential power today? Next time on Ideas of Globalisation: Central Banks vs the People (and Trump!) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Episode 254 of The Julia La Roche Show, legendary economist Dr. Lacy Hunt, Chief Economist at Hoisington Investment Management, analyzes what he calls an economic "interregnum" where five convergent forces are aligning to depress growth. Dr. Hunt methodically explains how tariffs will ultimately prove deflationary rather than inflationary, why the Fed's restrictive monetary policy is misplaced, how federal spending cuts are creating headwinds, why massive debt overhang limits policy effectiveness, and how changing demographics will impact long-term prospects. With over 56 years of experience and historical perspective dating back to the 1920s, Dr. Hunt delivers a sobering but authoritative prediction that recession lies ahead in 2025, describing it as "a long, difficult slog" rather than a brief downturn.Sponsor: This episode is brought to you by Monetary Metals. https://monetary-metals.com/julia Dr. Hunt is an internationally known and award-winning economist. He received the Abramson Award from the National Association for Business Economics for "outstanding contributions in the field of business economics."  Dr. Hunt is Executive Vice President and Chief Economist of Hoisington Investment Management Company (HIMCO).This is the 56th year in Dr. Hunt's career. He served as a Senior Economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. When he entered the Fed, William Martin was chair and was grappling with severe inflation and when Dr. Hunt left the Fed, Arthur Burns was chair and also trying to contain rampant price increases.  Dr. Hunt served 23 years on the Board of Trustees at Temple University where he received his PhD in 1969, and is an honorary life trustee as well.Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction and welcome1:16 - "Interregnum" explanation1:28 - Tariffs discussion begins2:08 - Economic boost from tariff announcements2:49 - Consumer buying ahead of tariffs3:42 - Employment impact of demand surge4:26 - Inventory accumulation5:03 - Federal spending decline (FY 2025)6:18 - Economy in frail condition7:05 - Beverage ratio analysis7:45 - Average hourly earnings indicator8:11 - April's wage growth weakness9:30 - Late Easter timing challenges10:31 - Recession prediction10:58 - Five convergent economic factors11:32 - Microeconomics of tariffs12:55 - Price elasticity in international trade14:31 - Historical context (1920s-1930s)15:44 - French devaluation of 192517:43 - Smoot-Hawley tariff impact19:45 - Chart explanation of M2 trend21:03 - Tariffs' impact on money supply22:15 - Monetary policy restrictiveness22:51 - Fed's "data dependency" critique25:31 - Other deposit liabilities explained28:38 - Fed policy recommendations29:37 - Tax cut potency limitations31:16 - Fed's need for longer-term view32:08 - Forward guidance discussion33:22 - Asset reallocation issues35:48 - Net national savings analysis37:39 - Birth rate economic connections39:46 - Immigration discussion42:52 - Recession confirmation43:49 - Historical economists on debt44:37 - Interest expense approaching defense spending46:18 - US debt impacts (125% of GDP)48:30 - Gross vs. net debt explanation49:48 - Fisher equation for bond yields53:00 - Tariffs' deflationary nature55:32 - High-tech sector growth analysis56:38 - Aircraft sector growth unsustainability57:11 - Federal spending outlook1:00:03 - Need for tariff dispute resolution1:01:18 - Closing remarks

Caleb O. Brown hosted the Cato Daily Podcast for nearly 18 years, producing well over 4000 episodes. He has gone on to head Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute. This is one among the best episodes produced in his tenure, selected by the host and listeners. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tariffs are back in the headlines—and so is market volatility. But is this a reason to panic or just another chapter in a long financial story? In this episode of Caffeine & Cash Flow, Michael Schulte walks through five historical periods of U.S. tariffs—from the Smoot-Hawley Act of the 1930s to recent measures under Presidents Trump and Biden—and reveals how markets performed during each era. The good news: it's not all doom and gloom. Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:

United States President Donald Trump's ‘reciprocal tariffs' have been compared to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s, which many say hastened the slide into the Great Depression. The difference between the 1930s and now is that we have the World Trade Organization (WTO) to oversee and enforce global trade rules. However, some argue that over the years, the WTO has gradually lost its compass and is in need of massive reforms. Is the WTO still relevant? Here we discuss the question. Guests: Mohan Kumar, Professor of Diplomatic Practice at the Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University. He previously served as India's lead negotiator at GATT and WTO; Mark Linscott, Senior Adviser with the U.S.India Strategic Partnership Forum and former assistant, United States Trade Representative for South and Central Asia Host: Samreen Wani You can now find The Hindu's podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Stitcher. Search for Parley by The Hindu. Write to us with comments and feedback at socmed4@thehindu.co.in

O fim da ordem global liderada pelos EUA está acontecendo diante dos nossos olhos? Neste episódio especial do Market Makers, destrinchamos o colapso da ordem econômica que sustentou o mundo desde o fim da Segunda Guerra Mundial.A partir do texto “The End of an Era”, escrito por Daniel Ades, vamos discutir como tarifas, dívidas públicas, a impotência da ONU e o papel da China estão redefinindo o futuro das relações internacionais e dos investimentos.Você vai entender:✅Por que o sistema criado após a Guerra Fria se tornou insustentável✅Como as instituições como ONU, OTAN e OMC falharam em se adaptar ao novo mundo✅O impacto da supremacia da China e do declínio da hegemonia americana✅O que a história da tarifa Smoot-Hawley ensina sobre o momento atual ✅Por que os investidores precisam esquecer os padrões antigos e repensar seus portfólios ✅Como a excecionalidade dos EUA era sustentada por um sistema que está ruindoEssa mudança não é apenas econômica — é geopolítica, estrutural e pode afetar tudo. Você acha que os EUA estão perdendo sua posição de liderança global? Ou estamos apenas vendo uma transição de poder inevitável? Comente aqui embaixo!

The 1920s and the 2020s share a special kinship. One hundred years ago, the U.S. was grappling with a mix of growth, technological splendor, and generational anxiety—a familiar cocktail (albeit, from an era where cocktails were illegal). The era's young people felt uniquely besieged by global forces. “My whole generation is restless," F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in This Side of Paradise. “A new generation dedicated more than the last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all Gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken." America was changing. And change always implies a kind of loss. We were moving toward cars and cities and manufacturing. And that meant we were moving away from horses and farmland and agriculture. And so, in 1930, just months into the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover signed a new piece of legislation to restore farmers to their previous glory. It was a great big tariff—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Rather than save the economy, it deepened the depression. Today, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff is one of the most infamous failures in the history of American politics. To suggest that it holds lessons for this moment in history is to state the obvious. Our guest is Douglas Irwin, an economist and historian at Dartmouth University and an expert on the economic debates of the Great Depression. We talk about the economic motivations of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the congressional debates that shaped it, the president who signed it, and the legacy it left. We talk about the economic instinct to preserve the past—an instinct that has never gone away in American history—and the profound irony, that some efforts to return America to its former glory can have the unintended effect of robbing America of a richer future. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Douglas Irwin Producer: Devon Baroldi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We tried to stay away from politics but we circle back after the game show president  wrecked the Dow and bonds market with his tariff obsession.  But don't worry because the MAGA cult still thinks this is all part of the master plan. 

Chas & Dr Dave discuss Smoot-Hawley's Wife, The Oztürk Challenge, and Who The Hell Ran in Wisconsin?0:00 - Introducing: Dr Dave, Hourglass, Coco4:13 - Grateful (Great Gatsby, Generous Peppers) 7:51 - ABC Update10:04 - Car Tariffs19:27 - Liberation Day59:15 - The Case For Tariffs1:36:21 - The "Tariff Pause"2:10:11 - TikTok Deal2:16:28 - Wisconsin Elections 2:32:21 - Vance in Greenland 2:42:02 - Unleashed (Trade War Updates)3:24:51 - Unleashed (Deportations)4:40:59 - Updates (Stefanik, Crockett, Ukraine, AP, Eagle's Nest, Eric Adams)HOMEWORK:* Donald Duck teaches you the merits of income taxes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMU-KGKK6q8* Dave's Recommended Great Gatsby Articlehttps://www.contrabandcamp.com/p/gatsbys-secret* The Oztürk Challengehttps://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on his sweeping global reciprocal tariffs for all countries, except for China.Trump has long expressed his love of tariffs. Just last week, he spoke about how believes the U.S. was founded on tariffs, and that they could have helped the country avoid the Great Depression. Then, referring to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, the President said: “They tried to bring back tariffs to save our country, but it was gone. It was gone. It was too late. Nothing could have been done — took years and years to get out of that depression.”Today on Front Burner, what lessons do the Smoot-Hawley tariffs offer during this moment of global economic chaos?Asa McKercher is the Hudson Chair in Canada-U.S. relations at the Brian Mulroney Institute of Government. He's back on Front Burner to talk about that and much more.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In this episode of ITR Live, Chris Hagenow and John Hendrickson deliver a packed discussion on Iowa's legislative session, focusing on budget targets, property tax reform, and a comprehensive historical take on tariffs and trade policy.Chris begins by praising Iowa's legislature for its self-imposed spending limits, which have kept spending well below legal thresholds and positioned the state for bold income tax cuts, including the move to a 3.8% flat tax. The hosts contrast this fiscal discipline with local governments, many of which continue to push for higher spending and call for new revenue streams—often without serious efforts to reduce costs.They also provide updates on the property tax reform bill still under discussion at the Capitol. The conversation urges local governments to follow the state's example by enacting self-imposed spending restraints, especially as constituents continue to push for relief amid high property tax burdens.In the second half, John offers an extensive and engaging history lesson on tariffs in American politics, from Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln to Warren Harding, Coolidge, and now Donald Trump. With the Trump administration's recent announcement of new tariffs—with a temporary pause on some—the hosts explore the economic and strategic rationale for tariffs, why free trade isn't always fair, and how manufacturing job losses and trade deficits have reshaped conservative thinking.Wrapping up, they reflect on Smoot-Hawley's misunderstood legacy, the global trade imbalance, and a growing bipartisan interest in rethinking how America approaches international trade. Plus, there's a trivia challenge: Can you guess who said, “The taxpayers literally groan under layer upon layer of tax units”?

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 ?

Kia ora,Welcome to Thursday's Economy Watch where we follow the economic events and trends that affect Aotearoa/New Zealand.I'm David Chaston and this is the international edition from Interest.co.nz.And today we lead with news that past notions of safe havens have been upended, and now it is the turn of the bond market to be roiled. The cost of long-term money is rising sharply as risk premiums leap.First, China has reacted in equal measure to Trump's capricious 104% tariffs on their goods, with their own extras, a 50% retaliatory tariff. The predictions any junior could see from the known Smoot-Hawley tit-for-tat protectionism are playing out.The first to blink hasn't been the Chinese. Trump has made an about-turn and paused higher reciprocal tariffs "for 90 days" that hit dozens of trade partners just after they became effective, while raising duties on China further to 125%. This u-turn surprised markets which is having an emotional relief reaction. But any gains today will be built on sand.So we are in a period of unmoored 'policy', with all the impacts ahead of us. History tells us this doesn't end well, for anybody including us.American homeowners know what's coming, and are rushing to fix their mortgage rates before they rise unaffordably. There was a sharp +20% rise in mortgage applications last week from the week prior, with the refinance component up an eye-popping +35% and almost double the level of a year ago. Borrowers sense they may not see rates this low again for a long time.Meanwhile, at the other end of the interest rate market, US Treasury yields are leaping, which means prices are dropping and holders are taking large losses. Today's US Treasury 10 year bond auction was well supported but at notably higher yields. Today the median yield was 4.34% whereas at the prior equivalent event a month ago it was 4.27%. This is a market where participants have regulatory obligations to buy.But in the open secondary market, the effects are starker. The UST 10 year yield rose +16 bps just from yesterday. (from a month ago, up +11 bps). Volatility is a new feature of these bond markets too.There was some US wholesale inventory data out overnight, but it was for February, and these were up just +1.1% from a year ago. But of course this was from a period well before the April omnishambles.Also out today were the US Fed minutes from their March 20 (NZT) meeting, but the views in these have all been overtaken by subsequent events, so have little current relevance. But even back then they sensed threats to inflation from Washington's tariffs, with heightened concerns about stagflation.In Japan, machine tool orders jumped sharply in March driven by export orders. They were up +11.4% year-on-year for the sixth consecutive month. Domestic demand remained stableIn India, and as expected, their central bank cut its policy interest rate by -25 bps to 6.00%. They cited easing inflation, slowing economic output, and growing global trade tensions as the reasons why they cut for a second successive time.The UST 10yr yield is now at 4.40%, up +16 bps from this time yesterday. Risk premiums are growing.Wall Street is currently up +7.4% on the S&P500 in its Wednesday trade as the tariff-pause relief rally kicks in. Who knows where it will end today. The price of gold will start today at just under US$3070/oz, and up +US$91 from yesterday. Perhaps this is one commodity exhibiting traditional safe-haven attributes.Oil prices have risen +US$2 from yesterday at just on US$62/bbl in the US and the international Brent price is now just on US$65/bbl.The Kiwi dollar is now at 56.2 USc, up +70 bps from yesterday at this time. Against the Aussie we are down -80 bps at 92.1 AUc. Against the euro we up +30 bps from yesterday at just on 51.1 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today now just on 65.8 and up +20 bps from yesterday.The bitcoin price starts today at US$81,930 and rising, and up +6.1% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been very high at +/- 4.2%.You can find links to the articles mentioned today in our show notes.You can get more news affecting the economy in New Zealand from interest.co.nz.Kia ora. I'm David Chaston. And we will do this again tomorrow.

Chris Naghibi and Saied Omar toss aside their planned topics faster than a politician dodging a question to tackle the economic grenade President Trump just lobbed: tariffs. And not just any tariffs—reciprocal tariffs with the subtlety of a wrecking ball. With import taxes soaring as high as 49%, countries like China, India, and the EU are basically being told, “Nice try, but America first.” As global markets went into panic mode, futures took a nosedive, and investors clutched their portfolios like toddlers clinging to their blankies.➡️ But fear not—Chris and Saied break it all down with historical flair (hello, Smoot-Hawley), modern spice, and a side of "WTF just happened to the stock market?" They explore the ripple effects on jobs, car prices (RIP affordable Jeeps), and even what this might mean for that imported espresso machine you were eyeing. If you've ever wondered how tariffs could impact your wallet, your 401(k), and your stress levels all at once, this episode delivers answers with wit, wisdom, and the economic sass you never knew you needed.

This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts on Alternate Current Radio, as host Patrick Henningsen breaks down the biggest stories internationally – including Trump's new global Smoot-Hawley style trade Tariff regime, an undeclared economic war against the world – in a desperate attempt to repair the US balance sheet. But is it too much too late? Meanwhile, the stock market has crashed as a result. Could be a bad trip for America. Later, we're joined by co-host Bryan ‘Hesher' McClain, Adam ‘Ruckus' Clark, as well as Basil Valentine, to breakdown this latest craziness and offer sane analysis of the situation. All this and more… Watch this episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiep-qg-oj0  This month's featured music artists: Joseph Arthur, Peter Conway, Red Rumble. SUPPORT OUR MEDIA OUTLET HERE (https://21w.co/support)

Smoot-Hawley says that tariffs will lead to another Great Depression, but is that the whole story? We dig, you can weigh in as well.

Preview: Colleague Richard Epstein comments on the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 that are said to have sealed the fate of the 1929 crash. More later. 1885 NYSE

Send us a textMarkets are in chaos, which is why on this week's episode Kristen and Jen ditch the interviews to break down what the hell is happening in markets right now. From tariffs to the dollar and everything in between, we're unpacking the massive moves in equities, the near-trigger of the circuit breaker, and what April 2nd — aka "Liberation Day" — really means.We dive deep into the economic mechanics behind tariffs — what they are, how they work, and why they're suddenly wreaking havoc. Jen gives a mini masterclass on the history of U.S. tariff policy, from Smoot-Hawley to modern-day trade wars, plus the ripple effects on the dollar and inflation. We talk stagflation risks, interest rates, retaliation from global trade partners, and whether this all signals a bigger shakeup — including real questions about the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency (along with some conspiracy theories about whether there's an ulterior motive for these moves).Finally, we pivot to some deal talk, focusing on the all-stock merger between Elon Musk's xAI and X (formerly Twitter). We break down what the deal actually means, why valuations seem... dubious, and how the whole thing serves as a real-world lesson in equity dilution. Bonus: we close with a little pickleball, skiing, and business etiquette chat — because it's not all macro mayhem all the time.Check out Public.com at the link http://public.com/wallstreetskinny Visit Vanta.com/wallstreet for $1,000 off Start your FREE TRIAL of Training The Street's Turbo Macros HEREOur Investment Banking and Private Equity Foundations course is LIVE: Or for our "Express Workout", our one hour top 5 technicals you must know for investment banking Masterclass, purchase for $49 HEREOur content is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.Public Disclosure: All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. Brokerage services for US-listed, registered securities, options and bonds in a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA & SIPC. Public Investing offers a High-Yield Cash Account where funds from this account are automatically deposited into partner banks where they earn interest and are eligible for FDIC insurance; Public Investing is not a bank. Cryptocurrency trading services are offered by Bakkt Crypto Solutions, LLC (NMLS ID 1890144), which is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the NYSDFS... See full disclos...

This week's show is sponsored by: EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News Fulton Fish Market This week on ""A Republic, If You Can Keep It" Republicans everywhere are reassessing after stumbling in a couple of Florida special elections that should have been slam dunks, and losing a State Supreme Court election in a Wisconsin landslide A day later by a stunningly trade war launched by the worst graduate in the history of the Wharton School of Economics. There was a Standing-Room-Only crowd as Democrats headlined a Town Hall in the heart of Macomb County, an event taking full aim at MIA Congressman John James. Last week, it was the most unqualified national security team ever assembled Signaling its stunningly consistent ineptness, with the revelation that at least one of them is conducting official business on Gmail. This week, it's RFK Jr. who, by advocating quack medicine while firing actual real scientists, accelerates a growing measles outbreak that's spreading from ground ZERO in Texas. Homeland Security ineptly condemns people to an indefinite stay in an El Salvador hell hole with no proof they've done anything wrong. And the U.S. Senate race has its first major candidate. We talk with state Senator Mallory McMorrow The first announced candidate for U.S. Senator is state Senator Mallory McMorrow. She exploded into the national spotlight in 2024 after an emotional response to very public personal attacks on her by Republican state Senator Lana Theis went viral. She is an ardent supporter of policies protecting reproductive rights, empowering local communities, and making Michigan a business- and family-friendly state. McMorrow is the Senate Majority Whip, serving her second term in the Michigan Senate. Prior to her election to the Senate she worked for more than a decade in product design, media and advertising with companies like Mazda, Mattel, Gawker Media, Hearst and other global brands. McMorrow hit the ground running during her first term in the Michigan Senate, winning policy changes such as ending Michigan's tampon tax, helping struggling businesses during the coronavirus pandemic, and protecting certain individuals (including domestic violence survivors) by creating an address confidentiality program. She earned her bachelor's degree in industrial design from the University of Notre Dame and resides in Royal Oak with her husband, Ray, their daughter, Noa, and their rescue dog, Detroit. At 38, she is the youngest person on the list of potential Senate candidates in either party. Ann Telnaes - antelnaes.com This episode is sponsored in part by =========================== EPIC ▪ MRA, a full service survey research firm with expertise in • Public Opinion Surveys • Market Research Studies • Live Telephone Surveys • On-Line and Automated Surveys • Focus Group Research • Bond Proposals - Millage Campaigns • Political Campaigns & Consulting • Ballot Proposals - Issue Advocacy Research • Community - Media Relations • Issue - Image Management • Database Development & List Management =========================== ===========================

- Matt Bennett, AgMarket.net- Fordney-McCumber, Smoot-Hawley, Trump- U of IL Moth Trapping Network Needs You- Mike Tannura, Tstrom.net ★ Support this podcast ★

Who among us isn't a little "Ferris Bueller," right? Outside of those rare, constantly driven and meticulous types, we all take little breaks and skirt by when we believe we can. The second Trump presidency seems like a lot of that - Donald and company just gliding by without putting in much effort to "show their work" but definitely there to hand in their assignment anyway. Such was the case with Trump's "Liberation Day" Rose Garden ceremony yesterday. So much pomp and circumstance for a day when many economists - even conservative lawmakers and farmers - believe Trump just ignited a trade war that's going to lead to a recession - or worse. Pffft; only commoners like us every really feel the kind of pain that comes with a recession (or worse) Even the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal editorial board called Trump's "Liberation Day" simply "buy another yacht day" for the well-connected and well-heeled.But say Trump and company actually do think sparking a global trade war via tariffs is somehow - for the first time in modern history - going to usher in some economic nirvana. They say that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It was on 'Ferris Bueller's Day off' the he missed his economics teacher droning on about 'Hawley-Smoot' tariffs fanning the flames of the Great Depression, for example. Even noted C and D student George W. Bush knew the folly in adopting the "evil triplets" of "isolationism, protectionism and nativism." It was her, after all, who gave something of a 'master class' and precautionary warning about those "triplets" and a reminder the damage "Smoot-Hawley" (or is it "Hawley-Smoot?" did in the 1930s, in a CSPAN Q&A fourteen years ago.My God, George W. Bush sounding professorial by comparison. Then there's the formula used to decide the rate of reciprocal tariff being levied. One economist and author termed it a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation. It was back on November 21st last year that I had Georgia Recorder columnist Jay Bookman on to discuss the many and varied ways Trump's tariff, tax and deportation policies were going to impact Georgians' budgets. The reaction yesterday, throughout Georgia's economics circles was "pretty insane."

Big changes - lots of year-end market S&P 500 downgrades. Recession and stagflation April - a quick look at some interesting highlights of April (historically) Bill Gates out with a big prediction The Best Deal Ever! (ELON) PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter  Warm-Up - Big changes - lots of year end market S&P 500 downgrades - Recession and stagflation - April - a quick look at some interesting highlights of April (historically) - Bill Gates out with a big prediction - The Best Deal Ever! (ELON) Markets - Corrections happen - Market jumped off the down worst levels on Monday - is worst priced in? - Earnings season starts 4/11 - JPM to report - Year end price targets - lowering - Yields DOWN - Was that the plan all along? OpenAi - OpenAI on Monday announced it had closed its $40 billion funding round, the most ever raised by a private tech company. - The deal values OpenAI at $300 billion, including the new capital. - The round comes to $30 billion from SoftBank and $10 billion from a syndicate of investors. Google Trends - Stagflation - Keyword Search hit highest point in a long time. - Lots of talk about the potential for higher inflation and softer jobs Friday is the UnEmp Report - Expectations are that the rate will tick up from 4.1% to 4.2% - 145-150k people added to the jobs rolls ---- That would till be good numbers. Tariff Day - AKA Liberation Day - April 2nd is the date that the retaliatory tariffs go on- - Facts say you? (I am not a smart man....) --- Between China and Canada, Mexico, estimates that the tariffs would bring in $150 Billion in 2025. - The US Stock market has lost $5.25 TRILLION during the same time - US GDP is $29 trillion annually - what is $150 BILLION going to do? - The U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2025 is projected to be approximately $1.9 trillion. Reagan - He is revered...ReaganOmics...... - April 25, 1987 -  Radio Address.. - " And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery. You see, at first, when someone says, Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs. - https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-address-nation-free-and-fair-trade-4 Something to Consider... - Talk on the street: " Tariffs are a negotiation tactic" (What does that mean anyway) -- Assumption: "US will win the negotiation" - - Has anyone considered: What if it does not? - The thought is that it needs to be "fair" Atlanta GDPNOW - Liked when it looks good - disregarded when looks bad - January 31 initial GDP Forecast for Q was +2.9% - Latest April 1  -3.7%

What do tariffs, the Laffer Curve, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off have in common? More than you'd think. This week, we dive into the world of trade policy, culture wars, and deflated middle-aged fatherhood, all from the basement. From Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" of tariffs to secret WhatsApp groups planning military strikes, this episode examines how America's trade war is about identity, masculinity, and a long-festering grudge against Europe. With a history lesson on Smoot-Hawley, Reaganomics, and the ghost of Arthur Laffer, we ask: if America is only barely exposed to global trade, why the war on Europe? And is this all just economic policy reimagined as culture war th Join the gang! https://plus.acast.com/s/the-david-mcwilliams-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tony Payan, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Center for the United States and Mexico at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. His most recent book is, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Structuring Alternative Futures.”  The US-Mexico relationship is very complicated in the areas of climate, migration, security and trade. Mexico is the US's largest trading partner with trade at almost $850 billion a year.  Candidate Donald Trump threatened to put a 200% tariff on John Deere tractors produced in Mexico. Generally, any tariff will be paid by the customer and raise the purchase price, increase the inflation rate and could lead to a Smoot-Hawley international recession or depression, whereas selective tariffs can be helpful in some cases.  Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum does not have a strong team; whereas Donald Trump may have the same problem, or a brain drain of expertise, if he fires more than 50,0000 knowledgeable professional public administrators. 

Hey Smarties! Today we’re revisiting an episode from earlier this year that might help you make sense of all the tit for tat tariff fight from the past few weeks. It unpacks some tariff history and the potential economic consequences of President Trump’s ongoing trade war. If President Donald Trump goes through with his plan to levy sweeping tariffs on foreign imports, it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has done such a thing. Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930? Anyone? Those tariffs are widely credited with sinking the United States deeper into the Great Depression. And although global trade looks different nowadays, they can teach us a lot about how Trump's protectionist approach to global trade could play out. On the show today, Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, explains how the Smoot-Hawley tariff debacle can shed light on the current moment, why the president has the power to wield tariffs in the first place, and how punishing trading partners could leave the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. Plus, what this fight has to do with the 1980s film “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” and Roomba vacuum cleaners! Later, one listener's call to visit your local butcher. And, dating coach Damona Hoffman, host of the “Dates and Mates” podcast, answers the “Make Me Smart” question just in time for Valentine's Day. Here's everything we talked about today: “Tariffs on Trading Partners: Can the President Actually Do That?” from Council on Foreign Relations “One Response to Trump's Tariffs: Trade That Excludes the U.S.” from The New York Times “The United States has been disengaging from the global economy” from the Peterson Institute for International Economics “Protectionism 100 years ago helped ignite a world war. Could it happen again?” from The Washington Post “The US is one of the least trade-oriented countries in the world – despite laying the groundwork for today's globalized system” from The Conversation Double your impact when you donate to Marketplace today, thanks to a $30,000 match from the Investors Challenge Fund: https://support.marketplace.org/smart-sn

Hey Smarties! Today we’re revisiting an episode from earlier this year that might help you make sense of all the tit for tat tariff fight from the past few weeks. It unpacks some tariff history and the potential economic consequences of President Trump’s ongoing trade war. If President Donald Trump goes through with his plan to levy sweeping tariffs on foreign imports, it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has done such a thing. Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930? Anyone? Those tariffs are widely credited with sinking the United States deeper into the Great Depression. And although global trade looks different nowadays, they can teach us a lot about how Trump's protectionist approach to global trade could play out. On the show today, Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, explains how the Smoot-Hawley tariff debacle can shed light on the current moment, why the president has the power to wield tariffs in the first place, and how punishing trading partners could leave the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. Plus, what this fight has to do with the 1980s film “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” and Roomba vacuum cleaners! Later, one listener's call to visit your local butcher. And, dating coach Damona Hoffman, host of the “Dates and Mates” podcast, answers the “Make Me Smart” question just in time for Valentine's Day. Here's everything we talked about today: “Tariffs on Trading Partners: Can the President Actually Do That?” from Council on Foreign Relations “One Response to Trump's Tariffs: Trade That Excludes the U.S.” from The New York Times “The United States has been disengaging from the global economy” from the Peterson Institute for International Economics “Protectionism 100 years ago helped ignite a world war. Could it happen again?” from The Washington Post “The US is one of the least trade-oriented countries in the world – despite laying the groundwork for today's globalized system” from The Conversation Double your impact when you donate to Marketplace today, thanks to a $30,000 match from the Investors Challenge Fund: https://support.marketplace.org/smart-sn

Meet our friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict with Ted Cruz, then The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Tuesday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts: ihr.fm/3InlkL8 1.) Things are going to get messy before they get better with government cuts and spending       -President Biden's autopen.       -Fixing the country isn't going to happen overnight       -Government efficiency. Inflation. Social engineering.       -Democrats change their mind in the moment for power.       -There is no accountability in Washington, DC.       -The bureaucrats are keeping you like a hamster on a treadmill. 2.) Explaining tariffs       -Reciprocal tariffs.       -Smoot Hawley tariff.       -Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist.       -DC based foreign policy consensus is a lot like the economic consensus.       -The threat of tariffs creates an even more playing field.       -Trade wars.       -Trump's economic record is strong. 3.) DOGE is doing the right thing       -Entities that rely on the federal bureaucracy       -Lunatic leftists lighting Tesla's on fire       -Elon is a threat to the       -The apparatus needs fraud to continue to avoid accountability       -Elon Musk says the cyber-attack on X originated from IP addresses "in the Ukraine area."       -Senator Mark Kelly compares Musk to a 12-year-old. 4.) Buck's Free Speech Questions       -Speaker of the House Mike Johnson       -The difference between free speech and violent protests.       -Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia, arrested by ICE agents and threatened with deportation       -Antisemitic protests.       -The pendulum will swing, keep that in mind. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts: ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

La era de protecionismo comercial que se inició en la década de 1930 en EE.UU. con la Ley de Tarifas, también conocida como Smoot-Hawley, agudizó los efectos de la Gran Depresión.

The United States Congress has until Friday, March 14 to pass a Federal Budget. If the House and Senate fail to pass the temporary spending plan, there could be a Government Shutdown. This is another Continuing Resolution that will fund the Government through the end of this Fiscal Year, September 30, 2025. The MAGA Controlled House has FAILED TO PASS ANOTHER 12 Month Budget. Meanwhile, in an interview with Fox-not-a-news-station, Trump admitted his Tariff Madness might lead to a “RECESSION.” In this podcast, I also look back at the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Economists say that legislation led to the Wall Street crash of 1929, which then morphed into the Great Depression that lasted most of the 1930s. Historians confirm these tariffs resulted in a world-wide economic downturn, which sparked World War II. Please follow me on TikTok, YouTube, and Substack. You can find links to my content on gloriamoraga.com  

Notes from James: I've been seeing a ton of misinformation lately about tariffs and inflation, so I had to set the record straight. People assume tariffs drive prices up across the board, but that's just not how economics works. Inflation happens when money is printed, not when certain goods have price adjustments due to trade policies. I explain why the current tariffs aren't a repeat of the Great Depression-era Smoot-Hawley Tariff, how Trump is using them more strategically, and what it all means for the economy. Also, a personal story: my wife's Cybertruck got keyed in a grocery store parking lot—just for being a Tesla. I get into why people's hatred for Elon Musk is getting out of control. Let me know what you think—and if you learned something new, share this episode with a friend (or send it to an Econ professor who still doesn't get it). Episode Description: James is fired up—and for good reason. People are screaming that tariffs cause inflation, pointing fingers at history like the Smoot-Hawley disaster, but James says, “Hold up—that's a myth!” Are tariffs really bad for the economy? Do they actually cause inflation? Or is this just another economic myth that people repeat without understanding the facts? In this episode, I break down the truth about tariffs—what they really do, how they impact prices, and why the argument that tariffs automatically cause inflation is completely wrong. I also dive into Trump's new tariff policies, the history of U.S. tariffs (hint: they used to fund almost the entire government), and why modern tariffs might be more strategic than ever. If you've ever heard that “tariffs are bad” and wanted to know if that's actually true—or if you just want to understand how trade policies impact your daily life—this is the episode for you. What You'll Learn: Why tariffs don't cause inflation—and what actually does (hint: the Fed's magic wand). How the U.S. ran on tariffs for a century with zero inflation—history lesson incoming! The real deal with Trump's 2025 tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and chips—strategy, not chaos. Why Smoot-Hawley was a depression flop, but today's tariffs are a different beast. How supply and demand keep prices in check, even when tariffs hit. Bonus: James' take on Cybertruck vandals and why he's over the Elon Musk...

We're back, and we force Mark to take a victory lap for his February rate cut prediction! We dive into the details of the RBA's decision and its implications for future cuts. Then, we dissect the market freakout following the release of Deepseek's open-source AI model. What does it say about AI market leaders' valuations, the effectiveness of export controls and the future of AI? Finally, we discuss the return of "Tariff Man" and the potential for a Smoot-Hawley moment.

With President Donald Trump bent on initiating a trade war by hiking tariffs on imports from major trading partners such as China, Mexico, and Canada, an infamous piece of legislation passed in 1930 is piquing Americans' curiosity. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act imposed the highest duties in U.S. history on roughly one-fourth of all imports. It contributed to a steep falloff in global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. Just when world commerce needed stimulation, many countries erected tariff barriers, often in retaliation for Smoot-Hawley. In this episode, economic historian Phillip Magness of the Independent Institute delves into the reasons why U.S. leaders once believed high tariffs were beneficial and how the executive branch obtained broad power to manipulate tariffs in the decades since. Further reading: FDR's Speech To Congress on Foreign Trade (1934)

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

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

We look at the 1890 McKinley Tariff, 1930 Smoot Hawley (anyone?) and Trump's Tariff schemes.  

I dazi del 25% imposti sulle importazioni da Messico e Canada (oltre a quelli del 10% sulla Cina) sono una iattura innanzitutto per l'America.Circa cento anni anni fa le economie occidentali vennero devastate dalla legge Smoot-Hawley che impose barriere protezionistiche in America e trasformò il crollo di Wall Street nell'ottobre del 1929 e la successiva crisi finanziaria in una depressione mondiale, scatenando una guerra commerciale globale che sfociò in una guerra mondiale.Solo dopo il 1945 si potè rimediare a quella follia liberalizzando i commerci e dando vita ad uno sviluppo economico impetuoso in Occidente mentre nelle economie autarchiche come Cina e India la popolazione moriva letteralmente di fame. C'è solo da sperare che i deliri protezionistici di Trump siano solo un modo per soddisfare temporaneamente le pulsioni becere dell'elettorato ignorante.

Amerika kormányt váltott. Mi várható Trump 2.0 alatt? Dr. Dobozi István Magyarok Óriási Kalandjai Amerikában ep. 248  

En entrevista para MVS Noticias con Manuel López San Martín, Eduardo Torreblanca, experto en finanzas, habló sobre la ley Smoot-Hawley que funcionó en EU a comienzos del siglo XX y retoma Trump. Torreblanca explicó que esta no es la primera vez que el gobierno estadounidense adopta políticas de aranceles como una medida de presión para obtener beneficios económicos, y destacó las lecciones históricas que pueden aplicarse hoy en día. ¿Qué es la Ley Smoot-Hawley? La ley Smoot-Hawley, promulgada en 1930, fue una de las más controvertidas en la historia económica de Estados Unidos. "A finales de los años 20 y principios de los 30, Estados Unidos adoptó medidas que poco tenían que ver con el comercio, sino con presionar para proteger su mercado interno y conservar empleos", explicó Torreblanca.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump is promising a universal 10% to 20% tariff on all imports to the U.S., plus perhaps 60% on China. Together this could push U.S. border taxes to highs not seen since the Great Depression and the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff. Do Trump's first-term tariffs suggest he'd follow through with this? And does a president actually have the power to create a blanket tariff? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No Fair Remembering Stuff: going full Smoot-Hawley on this one!  And stay tuned for Driftglass's amazing impersonation of Bill Clinton.  More at proleftpod.comSupport the show:PayPal |  https://paypal.me/proleftpodcastPatreon | https://patreon.com/proleftpodOur YouTube ChannelOpening and Closing Music:Jumpin Boogie Woogie by Audionautix | http://audionautix.com/|Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0Free Download / Stream: https://bit.ly/jumpin-boogie-woogieMusic promoted by Audio Library | https://youtu.be/S2wYQlC0UsSupport the Show.

From The Great Depression and the two World Wars to now COVID and the escalation of the War in Ukraine, the world has had its fair share of economic downturns. However, the way we recover from it seems different now than it was in the early 1900s. Here with us today to discuss the differences and similarities of past, present, and future recessions is Wharton Professor and esteemed economist, Jeremy Siegel. Jeremy shares his thoughts on the Monitor hypothesis, the potential severity of a recession, and how current technological advancements make an increase in productivity highly likely. We learn what the Federal Reserve could be doing better amidst the negative money growth we are currently experiencing before Jeremy gives us his take on digital currencies and why crypto may be a three-part revolution. “I do think, as I look back, because of my studies with Milton Friedman, that the principal cause of the Great Depression was the failure of the Fed to prevent the total collapse of the banking system.” — Professor Jeremy Siegel Key Points From This Episode: Welcoming today's guest, Wharton Professor and decorated economist, Jeremy Siegel. A look at Jeremy's professional background. Jeremy's thoughts on the Monitor hypothesis. What Jeremey thinks the severity of the an upcoming recession could be. How too much labor and inventory could compound a recession. Why innovation and automation may lead to a big increase in productivity in the near future. How Jeremy thinks today's economic climate compares to the Smoot-Hawley act and others. Whether inflation can drop below zero, mimicking post-disaster periods of old. What the Federal Reserve could do to bring back money growth. A closer look at the negative money growth America is currently experiencing. Why Jeremy believes it's no longer necessary to squeeze the economy to death to regain parity. Why increasing productivity should be our top priority. Whether a productivity rise is inevitable due to ever-changing technological advancements. Jeremy's take on digital currencies. Cryptocurrency as a possible three-part revolution.

Original Release on March 30th, 2022: As the Fed kicks off a new rate hiking cycle, investors are looking back at the previous hiking cycle to ease their concerns today. Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the last Fed hiking cycle and what it might mean for investors today. It's Wednesday, March 30th at 11:00 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Matt, we've recently entered a new Fed hiking cycle as the Fed deals with inflation. But it seems like clients have been focusing with you of late on the question of what drove the Fed during the last hiking cycle, where they paused their tightening and started to reverse course. Why is that something investors are focusing on right now? Matthew Hornbach: Well, Mike, investors are looking for answers about this hiking cycle, and a good place to start is the last cycle. The past week saw U.S. Treasury yields reach new highs and the Treasury curve flattened even more. Markets are now pricing Fed policy to reach a neutral setting this year of around 2.5%. The market also prices Fed policy to reach 3% next year. For context, the Fed was only able to raise its policy rate to 2.5% in the last cycle. So the fact that markets now price a higher policy rate than in the last cycle, after which the Fed ended up cutting interest rates, has people nervous. It's worth noting, though, that a 3% policy rate is still some distance below policy rates in the mid 1990s and the mid 2000s. Michael Zezas: Got it. So then, what do you think of the argument that the Fed may have over tightened in the last cycle? Matthew Hornbach: Well, instead of telling you what I think, let me tell you what FOMC participants were thinking at the time. I went back and read the minutes from the June 2019 FOMC meeting. That was the meeting before the Fed first cut rates, which they did in July. I chose to focus on that meeting because that's when several FOMC participants first projected lower policy rates. And according to the account of that decision, participants thought that a slowdown in global growth was weighing on the U.S. economy. In fact, evidence from global purchasing manager data showed that growth in emerging market and developed market economies was slowing, and was occurring well before the U.S. economy began to slow. And also, data suggested that global trade volumes were well below trend. So Mike, let me put it back to you then. It seems to me that Fed policy wasn't driving economic weakness back then, but that something else was driving this change in global economic activity. And I think, you know where I'm going with this... Michael Zezas: Yes, you're talking about the trade conflict between the U.S. and China, where from 2017 to 2019 there was a slow and then rapidly escalating series of tariff hikes between the two countries. It was a very public pattern of response and counter response, interspersed with negotiations and sharp rhetoric from both sides, eventually resulted in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in traded goods. Now, those tariffs endure to this day, but the tariff hikes stopped in late 2019 after the two sides made a stopgap agreement. But even though this was just a few years ago and perhaps seems tame in comparison to the global challenges that have come up since, like the pandemic and now the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I think it's important to remember that at the time this was a big deal and created a lot of concern for companies, economists and investors. You have to remember that before 2017, the consensus in the US and most of Europe was that free trade was good, and anything that raised trade barriers was playing with fire for the economy. We'd often hear from clients that raising tariffs was just like Smoot-Hawley, the legislation in the U.S. that hiked tariffs in many textbooks credit as a key cause of the Great Depression. So, as the U.S. and China engage in their tariff escalation and in many ways demonstrate, at least on the U.S. side, that the political consensus no longer viewed low trade barriers as intrinsically good, you have corporations becoming increasingly concerned about the direction of the global economy and starting to take steps to protect themselves, like limiting capital investment to keep cash on hand. And this, of course, concerned investors and economists. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So this is more or less what the Fed suggested when it actually moved to cut its policy rate in July of 2019. The opening paragraph of the FOMC statement, in fact, suggested that U.S. labor markets remain strong and that economic activity had been rising at a moderate rate. But to your point, Mike, the statement also said that growth of business fixed investment had been soft. And in describing the motivation to cut rates, the statement pointed to implications from global developments and muted inflation pressures at home. Michael Zezas: OK, so then if it wasn't tight Fed policy, it was instead this exogenous shock, the trade conflict between the US and China. What does that tell us about how investors should look at the risks and benefits of the Fed's policy stance today? Matthew Hornbach: Well, it first tells us that policy rates near 2.5% shouldn't worry us very much. Of course, a 2.5% policy rate today may not be the same as it was in 2018 at the height of the last hiking cycle. It may be more, or it may be less restrictive, only time will tell. But we know the economy we have today is arguably stronger than it was at the end of the last hiking cycle. The unemployment rate's about the same, but the level of real gross domestic product is higher, its rate of change is higher and inflation is higher as well, both for consumer prices and for wages. All of this suggests that Fed policy could go above 2.5%, like our economists suggest it will, without causing a recession. But as the last hiking cycle shows us, we need to keep our eyes out for other risks on the horizon unrelated to Fed policy. Michael Zezas: Well, Matt, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Matthew Hornbach: It was great talking with you, Michael, Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the Fed kicks off a new rate hiking cycle, investors are looking back at the previous hiking cycle to ease their concerns today. Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the last Fed hiking cycle and what it might mean for investors today. It's Wednesday, March 30th at 11:00 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Matt, we've recently entered a new Fed hiking cycle as the Fed deals with inflation. But it seems like clients have been focusing with you of late on the question of what drove the Fed during the last hiking cycle, where they paused their tightening and started to reverse course. Why is that something investors are focusing on right now? Matthew Hornbach: Well, Mike, investors are looking for answers about this hiking cycle, and a good place to start is the last cycle. The past week saw U.S. Treasury yields reach new highs and the Treasury curve flattened even more. Markets are now pricing Fed policy to reach a neutral setting this year of around 2.5%. The market also prices Fed policy to reach 3% next year. For context, the Fed was only able to raise its policy rate to 2.5% in the last cycle. So the fact that markets now price a higher policy rate than in the last cycle, after which the Fed ended up cutting interest rates, has people nervous. It's worth noting, though, that a 3% policy rate is still some distance below policy rates in the mid 1990s and the mid 2000s. Michael Zezas: Got it. So then, what do you think of the argument that the Fed may have over tightened in the last cycle? Matthew Hornbach: Well, instead of telling you what I think, let me tell you what FOMC participants were thinking at the time. I went back and read the minutes from the June 2019 FOMC meeting. That was the meeting before the Fed first cut rates, which they did in July. I chose to focus on that meeting because that's when several FOMC participants first projected lower policy rates. And according to the account of that decision, participants thought that a slowdown in global growth was weighing on the U.S. economy. In fact, evidence from global purchasing manager data showed that growth in emerging market and developed market economies was slowing, and was occurring well before the U.S. economy began to slow. And also, data suggested that global trade volumes were well below trend. So Mike, let me put it back to you then. It seems to me that Fed policy wasn't driving economic weakness back then, but that something else was driving this change in global economic activity. And I think, you know where I'm going with this... Michael Zezas: Yes, you're talking about the trade conflict between the U.S. and China, where from 2017 to 2019 there was a slow and then rapidly escalating series of tariff hikes between the two countries. It was a very public pattern of response and counter response, interspersed with negotiations and sharp rhetoric from both sides, eventually resulted in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in traded goods. Now, those tariffs endure to this day, but the tariff hikes stopped in late 2019 after the two sides made a stopgap agreement. But even though this was just a few years ago and perhaps seems tame in comparison to the global challenges that have come up since, like the pandemic and now the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I think it's important to remember that at the time this was a big deal and created a lot of concern for companies, economists and investors. You have to remember that before 2017, the consensus in the US and most of Europe was that free trade was good, and anything that raised trade barriers was playing with fire for the economy. We'd often hear from clients that raising tariffs was just like Smoot-Hawley, the legislation in the U.S. that hiked tariffs in many textbooks credit as a key cause of the Great Depression. So, as the U.S. and China engage in their tariff escalation and in many ways demonstrate, at least on the U.S. side, that the political consensus no longer viewed low trade barriers as intrinsically good, you have corporations becoming increasingly concerned about the direction of the global economy and starting to take steps to protect themselves, like limiting capital investment to keep cash on hand. And this, of course, concerned investors and economists. Matthew Hornbach: Right. So this is more or less what the Fed suggested when it actually moved to cut its policy rate in July of 2019. The opening paragraph of the FOMC statement, in fact, suggested that U.S. labor markets remain strong and that economic activity had been rising at a moderate rate. But to your point, Mike, the statement also said that growth of business fixed investment had been soft. And in describing the motivation to cut rates, the statement pointed to implications from global developments and muted inflation pressures at home. Michael Zezas: OK, so then if it wasn't tight Fed policy, it was instead this exogenous shock, the trade conflict between the US and China. What does that tell us about how investors should look at the risks and benefits of the Fed's policy stance today? Matthew Hornbach: Well, it first tells us that policy rates near 2.5% shouldn't worry us very much. Of course, a 2.5% policy rate today may not be the same as it was in 2018 at the height of the last hiking cycle. It may be more, or it may be less restrictive, only time will tell. But we know the economy we have today is arguably stronger than it was at the end of the last hiking cycle. The unemployment rate's about the same, but the level of real gross domestic product is higher, its rate of change is higher and inflation is higher as well, both for consumer prices and for wages. All of this suggests that Fed policy could go above 2.5%, like our economists suggest it will, without causing a recession. But as the last hiking cycle shows us, we need to keep our eyes out for other risks on the horizon unrelated to Fed policy. Michael Zezas: Well, Matt, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Matthew Hornbach: It was great talking with you, Michael, Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Trade wars aren’t new.  You may recall Ferris Bueller took a day off from school and in the process missed Ben Stein’s now famous lecture on… anyone, anyone?  Tariffs.  There have been several notable eras of trade wars over the past century. From the days of Smoot Hawley and the Great Depression, tariffs on all kinds of goods have impacted economic activity around the globe. Donald Trump has made it clear he and his administration want to take on China through tariffs.  Who wins this trade war?  Only time will tell, but in this special episode of Domino we examine the impact tariffs have had on our economy, the US consumer, and even chickens.  And we take a look forward to see how this round of negotiations may shape the future of global trade for generations to come.

Chick-fil-A had their grand opening in Poway and the city is buzzing.  People love CFA’s chicken.  Powegians have a new restaurant to enjoy.  There are smiling faces and neighbors meeting neighbors at the big event in town.  City leaders are there to share the event and get a photo op, but are they unknowingly promoting CFA?  What exactly should be the role of local government when it comes to managing the local economy?  Which businesses should the city promote, push aside or make illegal?  We discuss these issues plus also get into the political issues that always revolve around Chick-fil-A and the religious activism of their ownership. Then we discuss a Trump 2020 No More Bullshit flag proudly hoisted on a person’s property in town.  This gets us into issues about free speech, property rights, sign ordinances and the inconsistency of city officials in terms of how they manage free expression. We conclude with Trump’s recent “ordering” of businesses to do business with alternatives to China.  This leads us into a discussion of the trade war, TPP and much more. We also touched on so many topics and people including Smoot Hawley, HOV, EV, Padres, Pete Neild, Mike Polite, North Star, First 100 Campout, Steve Vaus, Republican, gay rights, Carmel Mountain Ranch, Poway, cronyism, marijuana, regulations, central planning, Ray Kroc, Phil Spear, Hamburger Factory, McDonald’s, climate change, property rights, sign ordinance, trade war, international emergency powers act, TPP, trans pacific partnership, blue collar, swing stages, Midwest, China, nationalism, protectionism, Japan, Wharton, trade deficit, automation, Great Depression, Ferris Buehler, Ben Stein, S. Truett Cathy #JohnRileyProject #Life #Liberty #PursuitofHappiness #ChickfilA #Trump #FreeSpeech #FreeTrade JRP0074 Supporting Articles: Trump ordering companies to find alternatives to Chinahttps://apnews.com/be18b8619cde4658a418dda4f416968a City of Poway Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/cityofpoway/ John Riley Project Info: Bookings? Inquiries? Contact me at https://johnrileyproject.com/Donations: https://www.patreon.com/johnrileyprojectSponsorship Inquiries: https://johnrileyproject.com/sponsorship/YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJJSzeIW2A-AeT7gwonglMAFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/johnrileyproject/Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnRileyPowayInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/johnrileypoway/iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-riley-project-podcast/id1435944995?mt=2Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3llrMItpbx9JRa08UTrswAStitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/john-riley-projectGoogle Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9qb2hucmlsZXlwcm9qZWN0LmNvbS9mZWVkLwTune In: https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/John-Riley-Project-Podcast-p1154415/Listen Notes: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/john-riley-project-john-riley-2l4rEIo1RJM/Music: https://www.purple-planet.com

Alex Merced discusses why Tariffs are bad policy and should be avoided by looking at the Great Depression and the…