The shambolic way that “Liberation Day “ was done (read “Regime Change” to see how the sausage was made) and still the tariffs had some positive effect indicates that they were needed. It is quite astounding that Europe still cozies up to China who is keeping Russia and Iran alive.
Trump is keeping Iran alive…if Trump were willing to do what Bush did to Saddam then Trump could win the war. And my Republican friends defended Iraq for years and so they believe sacrificing 4500 troops and spending $3 trillion for regime change is money well worth it.
I appreciate your dutiful defense of Trump's economic policies while the Administration itself seems temperamentally unable to explain them. Most mainstream economics think -what- the Administration wants to accomplish isn't all bad but -how- they go about it is. It's hard to believe that tariff chaos and offending our allies is in our interest, even if it drives change a bit faster (if we're lucky). On the other hand, most economists also seem to think (but largely only mutter under their breath) that we are one vibe shift away from a terribly painful economic swoon, the result of runaway debt, escalating rates, and the worst political disfunction in generations.
You might take a second and really think through, what is an ally? What's the purpose of having allies? When does an ally become mostly a liability rather then an asset?
Canada is a great case in point. Thirty years ago, not only did they have a much stronger military, but they were able to produce their own fighter jets. Granted, the jets they produced were an American design and relied on a bunch of American parts, but they still had the industrial capacity to build them.
The dirty secret never spoken, is that since signing NAFTA, Canada, has lost half a million manufacturing jobs along with big contraction in manufacturing capabilities. Now think about how our biggest challenge if we got into it with China would be just trying to swing production into making the missiles and ships needed to beat back China's ability to mass produce everything.
If the result of all the insults is for Canada to actually go back to making more of it's own goods, that would still make them a better potential ally. If the result included Canada teaming up with Sweden or someone else to produce their own weapons, that would make them a better potential ally.
It's the way we keep ignoring that words like "ally" are supposed to mean something more then just words on paper, that is collapsing the western world order. We should have been paying more attention to not just how hollowed out we've allowed our own industrial base to get, or how reliant on China for essential goods and material we've become, but how the same thing has been happening to our allies. Unfortunately, years of politely asking our allies to do better has failed. This is more of a last ditch attempt to get them to step up, before we step back regardless of their inability to defend themselves.
All good points. It would be way better if we had an administration who would explain plainly what -it- means by ally, and act in ways that distinguish allies from foes. There is a whole industry trying to discern the logic of the Trump administration's policies, or retrofit a logic onto them that would make them seem sensible. But no one really knows what Trump is trying to accomplish, other than to make the U.S. so powerful that it doesn't -need- allies.
The willingness of the Canadian public to support U.S. foreign policy objectives--or any U.S. objectives--has gone to zero, and could stay there for a generation. No matter what response the U.S. might have precipitated by attacking Canada, it is unlikely to benefit from it. You can see the consequences of U.S. treatment of its allies in the U.S war with Iran. Trump launched the war without consulting with allies, then berated them for not helping. Trump doesn't believe in alliances. He believes in having leverage over others. Unfortunately, e doesn't seem to recognize how alliances can provide leverage.
The U.S. doesn't need Canada's manufacturing prowess; it would do better to focus on the steps needed to develop its own. Indeed, by targeting Canada's economy, it is threatening both theirs and ours.
Trump has repeatedly said NATO was ripping us off. Not because the member countries didn't have the ability to defend themselves, but because they were paying too little and we were paying to much. Where are we now? The EU is ramping up spending. But it--and the U.S.--could be less safe for a generation because Trump has all but shattered the credibility of NATO's deterrent capability.
A couple points, the first being that we got Trump because no one else was actually willing to call out the naked emperor. People misread that parable. The emperor wasn't a fool, it was all the advisors and even the towns people that were too scared to admit the emperor was naked that were the problem. That's why it took a young boy to make everybody else admit what was true all along. You shouldn't be surprised when that young boy keeps acting like a young boy would, once elevated to a position of authority.
You're falling into the trap of blaming Trump rather then the whole rotting system. Two months before Trump was re-elected Germany was announcing that once it spent the money it had allocated for Ukraine, that was it. How is that not a bigger threat to the NATO alliance. Same as how Germany responded to Russia annexing Crimea by building two more pipelines to Russia. How was that not undermining NATO.
Returning to Canada. They are in danger of blaming America while ignoring their own very real problems that were already showing up before Trump. They have internal tariffs between the provinces. They have brewed up a nasty property bubble that was already bursting. They also have some foundational issues long ignored. The smaller provinces can't gang up and stop bad legislation like our smaller states can. This is partly why America makes as much off refining Canadian oil as Alberta makes pumping it, even while British Columbia gets it's gasoline and diesel from India.
You also have to remember that no administration can really explain what it's trying to do when almost the whole of the mainstream establishment is invested in stopping the changes that administration is trying to make. Think of how much help Obama had in selling Obamacare. There were plenty of politicians, academics, and even business leaders going on sympathetic news outlets to explain what Obama was trying to achieve.
Part of the problem is just how much of the mainstream establishment has voted for, invested in, or staked their reputations on free trade and mass migration. In many ways this has a lot of parallels with ending colonialism. With much of the French, British and even international political and business class investing in, and having defended the colonial system, it took a lot to get the majority of French and British society to climb down and admit colonialism was failing.
Ironically, even now, part of the UK's problems come from failing to rationalize what's left of their old colonial system. Can they really afford to defend the Faulk lands? It would have been better to sell the Malvinas(Diego Garcia) to the US decades ago. But add in the failure to federalize what's left into something greater then the some of it's parts.
So yeah, Trump is annoying and childish. But the failures of free trade and mass migration should have been being pointed out by a lot more economists, business leaders, union bosses, politicians and sympathetic media figures. With out that, it took someone like Trump to standup to the blows coming from all sides.
I want to add something to my comment below. Trump isn't the treat to NATO. The European Union is the biggest threat to NATO. Defense spending is something you have to do and while it can lead to innovation, it's mostly a non-productive expense. Unlike a new High School, a fighter jet depreciates in value even while you keep having to spend as much or more as would maintaining a high school. Likewise, a new frigate doesn't ease traffic congestion and increase worker productivity the way a new bridge or highway does.
Now step back and look at how the EU contains both allies and non-allies. Yet somehow Belgium is supposed to spend 4% a year on defense and not watch it's wealthiest citizens and most productive companies move to Ireland. Ireland only spends 0.25% on defense so those new Irishmen will get lower taxes, better schools and better infrastructure.
Meanwhile, we're in a bit of a bind. How do we reward our allies with better trade agreements when any trade agreement includes not just allies like Denmark but non-allies like Austria. Even then, how do we reward our most responsible allies like France with better agreements then less responsible allies like Spain.
Trump will be gone in a couple of years, but Italy will still be caught in a poverty trap. If it spends the 4% it's pledged to spend, then it will keep loosing out to some of it's fellow EU member states. If they don't spend, then at some point a future US government will stand back and watch as terrorists from north Africa or the middle east start attacking shipping in the Mediterranean.
Again, Trump is more a symptom of a system that is collapsing already, not the thing responsible for that collapse.
Hang in there Dan, modernity is just gonna keep on happnin, dagnabbit. Besides, we still have allies-Russia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and some African nations we're paying to take our deported brown people...
Another fun fact about Ms Keynes of the who is really an economist story, Ms Keynes is also the great great great granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Interesting the split on tariffs. Tariffs are still fairly popular with blue collar as far as I can tell, yet globalization is becoming a virtue signifier amongst the Resist Left.
All citizens who wish to be informed must read the daily bleats of the aging leader of the “new” right-Don. Every word. Every day. Today, his latest taco threat is to stop trading with all countries with which we have a trade deficit, unless the fed lowers rates. Really. Alas, as Iran has learned, Don’s threats are meaningless. However, our burgeoning trade deficit and record fiscal deficits are not.
We’ve already lost MAGA’s Middle East war, here’s hoping Don salvages something from his incoherent trade war. Meanwhile, as evidenced by Don’s dismal approval ratings on the economy, (now even lower than Joepa’s), the DonOrenomics manufacturing renaissance we've been promised hasn’t quite trickled down to the working stiffs.
The author is being intellectually dishonest…Trump clearly ran on getting back to 1979 levels of manufacturing jobs and Republicans attacked Obama for stating the obvious that most of the manufacturing jobs we lost since 1980 are never coming back. Btw, why do you think Vance is rehabilitating Nixon at Reagan’s expense?? Because the first round of manufacturing job cuts happened under Reagan!
Two things are clear. One, we manufacture more than we ever have, by a lot, but we employ far fewer people to do so. It's a decades long trend that Don cannot reverse unless he can repeal automation and the technological revolution. Second, Don's diminished mental capacity renders him incapable of wielding the smarts and focus necessary to implement long term, strategic reforms.
Oren bought the MAGA ticket, now he's takin the ride. His professional reputation is forever lashed to Don's success or lack thereof in leading the "new" right movement. Hence his fluffing tendencies.
If one can justify an insurrection, and masked, armed federal agents gunning down fellow citizens on video, justifying a mere taco tariff is easy.
If you go back and read articles about the car industry during the Reagan Recovery the executives explain that they prefer paying overtime to hiring new workers because new workers come with benefits. So the time to transition to universal health care was the 1970s and then when we missed that opportunity the time was the 1990s. Republicans definitely obstructed Clinton’s reform efforts and that’s why the China Shock was so awful under Bush.
The silence of the establishment elites in my former party is horrifying. They used to go ballistic when Obama wore a tan suit for gods sake, but no one can utter a peep now. Not a word as our institutions are shredded.
Make the lower paying jobs feeding the presses go away, and be replaced by much higher paying jobs designing, building, maintaining and operating the AI and robotics. Just like how tractors pushed workers off the farm and while assembly lines meant those workers were now making cars, TVs, and eventually computers so cheap to produce that everybody could afford them. All while working fewer hours and while improving the working conditions.
That's one of the things people don't understand. By reducing the labor, material and energy needed to produce things, everybody winds up with more. Then is becomes possible for even more people to make a living while working less, or by pursuing their passions like music, art or working at the local history museum.
I'm struggling to understand what the end goal is here? Manufacturing output has steadily increased (until the Pandemic) since 1979 yet jobs have steadily decreased until recently. Do we really think that in 2050 there will be a need for a massive number of manufacturing jobs in the US? Or anywhere really? This seems like a shortsighted way to go about things. Technological innovation will continue to shrink the need. There will certainly be some higher paying jobs in the sector but overall job numbers will continue to decline. We need manufacturing capability and capacity, but that doesn't necessarily mean there will be a plentiful amount of manufacturing jobs like we had from 1950 to 1980. China is a huge threat, no doubt about that, but they are a threat because of their increased capacity to innovate in science and technology, not because they are a manufacturing powerhouse. Even adding another 1 - 2 million manufacturing jobs likely won't be a significant boon to the economy. We should be focused on how to make the American worker a technological innovator and our children dream of a future we can't even comprehend right now. Oren at least has that part right; we cannot allow firms and educational institutions to exploit immigration loopholes. We should emphasize diversity of thought and experience, not be afraid of it. If Donald was truly concerned with anything other than his vanity projects and enriching himself, he would be working on true immigration reform, emphasizing educational reforms that matter, and fostering a new generation of thinkers and innovators.
Perhaps I misunderstand Oren, but what he seems to be advocating is an increase in traditional manufacturing jobs. It seems unlikely to me that most of our middle-aged factory workers will become AI and robotics builders, designers and operators. The transition to AI and robotics will leave many behind. Managing the transition will not be easy. And the USA will not have the kinds of advantages in building its economy it had in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
Glad to hear about wages going up in manufacturing and construction, but if the demand is for "skilled" workers right out of the gate, that cuts out the apprenticeship level we should also be looking for, as well as expecting employers to do some training of their own. Every boss would loved a seasoned employee (at entry-level wages) delivered on demand - if employers refuse to train (or support training programs), US workers, some sidelined for decades, will be at a disadvantage. Thanks for another excellent post!
The shambolic way that “Liberation Day “ was done (read “Regime Change” to see how the sausage was made) and still the tariffs had some positive effect indicates that they were needed. It is quite astounding that Europe still cozies up to China who is keeping Russia and Iran alive.
Trump is keeping Iran alive…if Trump were willing to do what Bush did to Saddam then Trump could win the war. And my Republican friends defended Iraq for years and so they believe sacrificing 4500 troops and spending $3 trillion for regime change is money well worth it.
Europe (and Canada) is completely useless whether we are talking about the economic struggle with China or defending the Arctic.
I appreciate your dutiful defense of Trump's economic policies while the Administration itself seems temperamentally unable to explain them. Most mainstream economics think -what- the Administration wants to accomplish isn't all bad but -how- they go about it is. It's hard to believe that tariff chaos and offending our allies is in our interest, even if it drives change a bit faster (if we're lucky). On the other hand, most economists also seem to think (but largely only mutter under their breath) that we are one vibe shift away from a terribly painful economic swoon, the result of runaway debt, escalating rates, and the worst political disfunction in generations.
Take the good with the bad?
You might take a second and really think through, what is an ally? What's the purpose of having allies? When does an ally become mostly a liability rather then an asset?
Canada is a great case in point. Thirty years ago, not only did they have a much stronger military, but they were able to produce their own fighter jets. Granted, the jets they produced were an American design and relied on a bunch of American parts, but they still had the industrial capacity to build them.
The dirty secret never spoken, is that since signing NAFTA, Canada, has lost half a million manufacturing jobs along with big contraction in manufacturing capabilities. Now think about how our biggest challenge if we got into it with China would be just trying to swing production into making the missiles and ships needed to beat back China's ability to mass produce everything.
If the result of all the insults is for Canada to actually go back to making more of it's own goods, that would still make them a better potential ally. If the result included Canada teaming up with Sweden or someone else to produce their own weapons, that would make them a better potential ally.
It's the way we keep ignoring that words like "ally" are supposed to mean something more then just words on paper, that is collapsing the western world order. We should have been paying more attention to not just how hollowed out we've allowed our own industrial base to get, or how reliant on China for essential goods and material we've become, but how the same thing has been happening to our allies. Unfortunately, years of politely asking our allies to do better has failed. This is more of a last ditch attempt to get them to step up, before we step back regardless of their inability to defend themselves.
All good points. It would be way better if we had an administration who would explain plainly what -it- means by ally, and act in ways that distinguish allies from foes. There is a whole industry trying to discern the logic of the Trump administration's policies, or retrofit a logic onto them that would make them seem sensible. But no one really knows what Trump is trying to accomplish, other than to make the U.S. so powerful that it doesn't -need- allies.
The willingness of the Canadian public to support U.S. foreign policy objectives--or any U.S. objectives--has gone to zero, and could stay there for a generation. No matter what response the U.S. might have precipitated by attacking Canada, it is unlikely to benefit from it. You can see the consequences of U.S. treatment of its allies in the U.S war with Iran. Trump launched the war without consulting with allies, then berated them for not helping. Trump doesn't believe in alliances. He believes in having leverage over others. Unfortunately, e doesn't seem to recognize how alliances can provide leverage.
The U.S. doesn't need Canada's manufacturing prowess; it would do better to focus on the steps needed to develop its own. Indeed, by targeting Canada's economy, it is threatening both theirs and ours.
Trump has repeatedly said NATO was ripping us off. Not because the member countries didn't have the ability to defend themselves, but because they were paying too little and we were paying to much. Where are we now? The EU is ramping up spending. But it--and the U.S.--could be less safe for a generation because Trump has all but shattered the credibility of NATO's deterrent capability.
A couple points, the first being that we got Trump because no one else was actually willing to call out the naked emperor. People misread that parable. The emperor wasn't a fool, it was all the advisors and even the towns people that were too scared to admit the emperor was naked that were the problem. That's why it took a young boy to make everybody else admit what was true all along. You shouldn't be surprised when that young boy keeps acting like a young boy would, once elevated to a position of authority.
You're falling into the trap of blaming Trump rather then the whole rotting system. Two months before Trump was re-elected Germany was announcing that once it spent the money it had allocated for Ukraine, that was it. How is that not a bigger threat to the NATO alliance. Same as how Germany responded to Russia annexing Crimea by building two more pipelines to Russia. How was that not undermining NATO.
Returning to Canada. They are in danger of blaming America while ignoring their own very real problems that were already showing up before Trump. They have internal tariffs between the provinces. They have brewed up a nasty property bubble that was already bursting. They also have some foundational issues long ignored. The smaller provinces can't gang up and stop bad legislation like our smaller states can. This is partly why America makes as much off refining Canadian oil as Alberta makes pumping it, even while British Columbia gets it's gasoline and diesel from India.
You also have to remember that no administration can really explain what it's trying to do when almost the whole of the mainstream establishment is invested in stopping the changes that administration is trying to make. Think of how much help Obama had in selling Obamacare. There were plenty of politicians, academics, and even business leaders going on sympathetic news outlets to explain what Obama was trying to achieve.
Part of the problem is just how much of the mainstream establishment has voted for, invested in, or staked their reputations on free trade and mass migration. In many ways this has a lot of parallels with ending colonialism. With much of the French, British and even international political and business class investing in, and having defended the colonial system, it took a lot to get the majority of French and British society to climb down and admit colonialism was failing.
Ironically, even now, part of the UK's problems come from failing to rationalize what's left of their old colonial system. Can they really afford to defend the Faulk lands? It would have been better to sell the Malvinas(Diego Garcia) to the US decades ago. But add in the failure to federalize what's left into something greater then the some of it's parts.
So yeah, Trump is annoying and childish. But the failures of free trade and mass migration should have been being pointed out by a lot more economists, business leaders, union bosses, politicians and sympathetic media figures. With out that, it took someone like Trump to standup to the blows coming from all sides.
I want to add something to my comment below. Trump isn't the treat to NATO. The European Union is the biggest threat to NATO. Defense spending is something you have to do and while it can lead to innovation, it's mostly a non-productive expense. Unlike a new High School, a fighter jet depreciates in value even while you keep having to spend as much or more as would maintaining a high school. Likewise, a new frigate doesn't ease traffic congestion and increase worker productivity the way a new bridge or highway does.
Now step back and look at how the EU contains both allies and non-allies. Yet somehow Belgium is supposed to spend 4% a year on defense and not watch it's wealthiest citizens and most productive companies move to Ireland. Ireland only spends 0.25% on defense so those new Irishmen will get lower taxes, better schools and better infrastructure.
Meanwhile, we're in a bit of a bind. How do we reward our allies with better trade agreements when any trade agreement includes not just allies like Denmark but non-allies like Austria. Even then, how do we reward our most responsible allies like France with better agreements then less responsible allies like Spain.
Trump will be gone in a couple of years, but Italy will still be caught in a poverty trap. If it spends the 4% it's pledged to spend, then it will keep loosing out to some of it's fellow EU member states. If they don't spend, then at some point a future US government will stand back and watch as terrorists from north Africa or the middle east start attacking shipping in the Mediterranean.
Again, Trump is more a symptom of a system that is collapsing already, not the thing responsible for that collapse.
Hang in there Dan, modernity is just gonna keep on happnin, dagnabbit. Besides, we still have allies-Russia, El Salvador, Venezuela, and some African nations we're paying to take our deported brown people...
Another fun fact about Ms Keynes of the who is really an economist story, Ms Keynes is also the great great great granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Interesting the split on tariffs. Tariffs are still fairly popular with blue collar as far as I can tell, yet globalization is becoming a virtue signifier amongst the Resist Left.
All citizens who wish to be informed must read the daily bleats of the aging leader of the “new” right-Don. Every word. Every day. Today, his latest taco threat is to stop trading with all countries with which we have a trade deficit, unless the fed lowers rates. Really. Alas, as Iran has learned, Don’s threats are meaningless. However, our burgeoning trade deficit and record fiscal deficits are not.
We’ve already lost MAGA’s Middle East war, here’s hoping Don salvages something from his incoherent trade war. Meanwhile, as evidenced by Don’s dismal approval ratings on the economy, (now even lower than Joepa’s), the DonOrenomics manufacturing renaissance we've been promised hasn’t quite trickled down to the working stiffs.
Good luck America.
The author is being intellectually dishonest…Trump clearly ran on getting back to 1979 levels of manufacturing jobs and Republicans attacked Obama for stating the obvious that most of the manufacturing jobs we lost since 1980 are never coming back. Btw, why do you think Vance is rehabilitating Nixon at Reagan’s expense?? Because the first round of manufacturing job cuts happened under Reagan!
Two things are clear. One, we manufacture more than we ever have, by a lot, but we employ far fewer people to do so. It's a decades long trend that Don cannot reverse unless he can repeal automation and the technological revolution. Second, Don's diminished mental capacity renders him incapable of wielding the smarts and focus necessary to implement long term, strategic reforms.
Oren bought the MAGA ticket, now he's takin the ride. His professional reputation is forever lashed to Don's success or lack thereof in leading the "new" right movement. Hence his fluffing tendencies.
If one can justify an insurrection, and masked, armed federal agents gunning down fellow citizens on video, justifying a mere taco tariff is easy.
If you go back and read articles about the car industry during the Reagan Recovery the executives explain that they prefer paying overtime to hiring new workers because new workers come with benefits. So the time to transition to universal health care was the 1970s and then when we missed that opportunity the time was the 1990s. Republicans definitely obstructed Clinton’s reform efforts and that’s why the China Shock was so awful under Bush.
Please…
The silence of the establishment elites in my former party is horrifying. They used to go ballistic when Obama wore a tan suit for gods sake, but no one can utter a peep now. Not a word as our institutions are shredded.
What will AI and robotics do to manufacturing jobs over the next decade?
Make the lower paying jobs feeding the presses go away, and be replaced by much higher paying jobs designing, building, maintaining and operating the AI and robotics. Just like how tractors pushed workers off the farm and while assembly lines meant those workers were now making cars, TVs, and eventually computers so cheap to produce that everybody could afford them. All while working fewer hours and while improving the working conditions.
That's one of the things people don't understand. By reducing the labor, material and energy needed to produce things, everybody winds up with more. Then is becomes possible for even more people to make a living while working less, or by pursuing their passions like music, art or working at the local history museum.
I'm struggling to understand what the end goal is here? Manufacturing output has steadily increased (until the Pandemic) since 1979 yet jobs have steadily decreased until recently. Do we really think that in 2050 there will be a need for a massive number of manufacturing jobs in the US? Or anywhere really? This seems like a shortsighted way to go about things. Technological innovation will continue to shrink the need. There will certainly be some higher paying jobs in the sector but overall job numbers will continue to decline. We need manufacturing capability and capacity, but that doesn't necessarily mean there will be a plentiful amount of manufacturing jobs like we had from 1950 to 1980. China is a huge threat, no doubt about that, but they are a threat because of their increased capacity to innovate in science and technology, not because they are a manufacturing powerhouse. Even adding another 1 - 2 million manufacturing jobs likely won't be a significant boon to the economy. We should be focused on how to make the American worker a technological innovator and our children dream of a future we can't even comprehend right now. Oren at least has that part right; we cannot allow firms and educational institutions to exploit immigration loopholes. We should emphasize diversity of thought and experience, not be afraid of it. If Donald was truly concerned with anything other than his vanity projects and enriching himself, he would be working on true immigration reform, emphasizing educational reforms that matter, and fostering a new generation of thinkers and innovators.
Perhaps I misunderstand Oren, but what he seems to be advocating is an increase in traditional manufacturing jobs. It seems unlikely to me that most of our middle-aged factory workers will become AI and robotics builders, designers and operators. The transition to AI and robotics will leave many behind. Managing the transition will not be easy. And the USA will not have the kinds of advantages in building its economy it had in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
Glad to hear about wages going up in manufacturing and construction, but if the demand is for "skilled" workers right out of the gate, that cuts out the apprenticeship level we should also be looking for, as well as expecting employers to do some training of their own. Every boss would loved a seasoned employee (at entry-level wages) delivered on demand - if employers refuse to train (or support training programs), US workers, some sidelined for decades, will be at a disadvantage. Thanks for another excellent post!
David Bier from Cato is quite the arrogant dude--raising his voice and condescending to senators while testifying.