Economists say tariffs can increase prices for consumers, but Robert Lighthizer, President Trump's former trade chief, argues they're necess
You don't know Robert Lighthizer but his influence with President Trump could change America's economy. Lighthizer was the top U.S. trade negotiator in the first Trump administration and he's an evangelist for tariffs—taxes on imported goods. Yesterday, the president declared an emergency and imposed unusually high 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and 10% on China to coerce them to stop the flow of the deadly drug fentanyl. That's unusual because tariffs are normally used to balance trade. And in Lighthizer's opinion, America has little choice. He says China's three-to-one dominance in trade is a threat to our way of life.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, U.S. legislation passed on June 17, 1930, that raised import duties to protect American businesses and farmers, add
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, U.S. legislation (June 17, 1930) that raised import duties to protect American businesses and farmers, adding considerable strain to the international economic climate of the Great Depression. The act takes its name from its chief sponsors, Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Willis Hawley of Oregon, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. It was the last legislation under which the U.S. Congress set actual tariff rates.
Donald Trump: China and Iran Probably Prefer Negotiating with Democrat 'Dope' After 2020
Donald Trump: China and Iran Probably Prefer Negotiating with Democrat ‘Dope’ After 2020
President Donald Trump said Friday that the leaders of China and Iran were probably waiting for him to lose the 2020 election, which explained why they were slow to deal with him on issues like trade.
“I don’t think personally China would sign a deal if I had a two percent chance of losing the election, I think China would probably say, ‘Let’s wait,’” Trump said, paraphrasing the mindset of…
America’s lead trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, had an awkward encounter with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday as he tried to calmly school him on legal terminology in front of reporters and a chuckling representative from China.
Lighthizer finally stopped trying, and instead deftly switched the term for the same document when he realized he wasn’t making any headway with the president.
It started when Trump was asked by a reporter how long “memorandums of understanding” being negotiated with China over trade disputes would last.
Trump shot back: “I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything.”
Lighthizer calmly corrected the president, and turned to explain to reporters: “An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally [established]. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memo of understanding is a binding agreement.”
He added: “It’s detailed, it covers everything. ... It’s a legal term; it’s a contract.”
“I disagree,” said a scowling Trump, causing top Chinese negotiator Vice Premier Liu He to laugh. “A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is,” he said, circling his hands in the air. “How long will that take to put into a ... contract?”
In a flash, Lighthizer switched gears without breaking a sweat: “From now on we’re not using ‘memorandum of understanding’ anymore (sparking laughter from several people in the room). We’re going to use the term ‘trade agreement.’ We’ll have the same document; it’s going to be called a trade agreement. We’re never going to have an MOU again.”
“Good,” said Trump.
----------------------
Trump caves on Chinese tariff increase for the second month in a row
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s trade representative is spending nearly $1 million on new furniture — and blaming the Obama administration. US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer spent more than …
Think Scott Pruitt is bad? Get a load of Robert Lighthizer.
Countries with democratic governments and mostly free economies should come together and create a new trade regime, based on balance.
A few facts from this article:
"That the trading system has failed America seems clear. In the last 20 years, we have transferred some $20 trillion of our wealth (in the form of equity in our companies, debt and real estate) to the governments and citizens of the exploiting countries. The aggressors now own both those assets and the future income of a large segment of the U.S. economy. We and our children are poorer and our ostensible trading “partners” are richer."
“We recently achieved a dubious distinction in two critical areas: For the first time in our history, we imported more food than we exported, and more than half of the passenger cars sold in America were imported.”
"But our workers are the real victims of these policies. They have seen millions of their good-paying jobs disappear, their real wages have mostly stagnated for more than two decades and many of their communities have been decimated."
"At the same time, wealth inequality has grown to an alarming level. The top 1 percent of our families now have more wealth than the middle 60 percent."
This article contains affiliate links. If you click on these links and make a purchase, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Trump speaking virtually from the White House Diplomatic Reception Room to the 75th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2020. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
On November 5, Donald Trump was elected for a second term as…
In this final episode on the Fear Of Success, we cover ancient and modern views of success and the inevitable conflicts of interest.
For Lighthizer, there has to be trade negotiations that think of trade balance and mutual advantages so that there isn't a carte blanche situation. If results on the ground show unfair trade practices, like dumping, currency manipulation, or a lack of access, there has to be a reassessment of any trade deal. "All the great economies were built behind a wall of protection and often with government money. The British industrial revolution was aided by a wall of tariffs. Likewise, the late-nineteenth-century explosion of American industry was the product of protectionism and often subsidies. Can anyone imagine the great American railroads being built without the grant of free land per mile? Similarly, the manufacturing countries of Japan, Germany, and now China all benefited during their development from tariffs, other barriers, and subsidies of one kind or another. It is important to remember that no country became great by consuming. They became great by producing...Our trade deficit grew by a factor of fourteen, while our GDP grew by a factor of four. The win-win situation promised by advocates of free trade has never materialized...It is not my position that all trade deficits are harmful. Clearly, if a country runs a deficit one year and a surplus the next, no harm is done. The surplus will offset the deficit, and all is good. Likewise, for one country to run a bilateral trade deficit with a second country and a surplus with a third is fine. They offset each other. Indeed, all three countries could benefit by increasing efficiency and maximizing the allocation of resources among them. What concerns me is running huge trade deficits with the entire world year after year for decades...The second exception to the principle that bilateral deficits don’t matter is that running up gigantic trade deficits with one’s geopolitical adversary is particularly stupid. In our case, the United States ships hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of our wealth to China every year. This helps them build up their economy, build up their military, and have leverage over the political situation in the United States. It makes them more powerful in the eyes of all world leaders. I’m not sure there’s an example in world history in which two rivals—indeed, some would say enemies—have had such a lopsided economic relationship. It is fair to say China is challenging us because we gave them the money to do it. Clearly, during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, we never transferred such money. Had we done so, we might have lost to them...Tariffs don’t necessarily prompt trade wars, and removing tariffs often does little to prevent actual war."
There is also "...negative compounding. The people in the foreign country who buy our assets own those assets forever, with the obvious effect that they get the profit from those assets year after year. That profit compounds, and the effects of even one year’s trade deficit multiply over time as profits continue. Added to this is the fact that we have seen huge $500 billion to $1 trillion trade deficits year after year, so we have both an accumulation of trade deficits and a compounding negative multiplier on each trade deficit." Theory then assumed that it would still balance out because "...if a country that ran large trade deficits for a few years [they] would find less demand for their currency and their currency’s value would drop. This would then make it very difficult for that country to import and easy for it to export in terms of its domestic currency. Therefore, the weak currency would help correct the trade imbalance. Indeed, we see this occurring regularly around the world." Lighthizer then found that this didn't work for the U.S. because of the currency's demand in the world as a reserve currency, and the devaluation that other trade partners had done with their currencies. With a threat of a new BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) currency with developing countries dropping the dollar, there would then be a reduction of demand for the U.S. dollar, but this may be a long way off. According to Reuters "the [U.S.] dollar still dominates global trade. It is on one side of almost 90% of global forex transactions, according to Bank of International Settlements Data." The danger would be the mounting U.S. debt because you need people to buy your debt and if there's a sell off, there may not be enough buyers to avoid the U.S. government from having to print excess money to buy back the investments. The increased inflation would be damaging to U.S. dollar purchasing power, even if domestic manufacturing could restart from the high import cost environment.
Economist Sounds Alarm on US Dollar Losing Reserve Currency Status: https://news.bitcoin.com/economist-sounds-alarm-on-us-dollar-losing-reserve-currency-status/
The Path To Hyperinflation with EJ Antoni - TFTC: https://rumble.com/v3r7vlp-456-the-path-to-hyperinflation-with-ej-antoni.html
A lot of these unfair trade practices were also ignored for fear of stoking a trade war. "Trade liberalization came to be seen not just as a tool of economic policy but also as a path to perpetual peace." Lighthizer's book does come after COVID19, but the origin of the pandemic has yet to be investigated with enough thoroughness to prove that it was a lab accident only. Many people still feel intuitively that the release of COVID19 was intentional and a form of escalation in response to Trump's tariffs on China. It certainly doesn't help that China declared a People's War in 2019 before the pandemic. Chinese state media said that, "the Chinese side is fighting back to protect its legitimate interests. The trade war in the US is the creation of one person and one administration, but it affects that country’s entire population...In China, the entire country and all its people are being threatened. For us, this is a real 'people’s war.'" In the Strong Country blog one poster said "[The U.S. is] sucking the blood of the Chinese..." Another comment on the site said, "Why are Chinese people bullied? Because our hearts are too soft!" This would be an argument for peace advocates in the United States to allow mercantilism to continue in China, but Lighthizer would counter that not all wars are stopped by liberal trade policies. "Economic ties between the North and the South did not prevent the Civil War...It would be hard to argue that the rise of Germany as a major exporter in the late nineteenth century helped pacify that country in the first half of the twentieth. Japan’s dependence on raw materials from the United States motivated its attack on Pearl Harbor...China’s accession to the WTO in 2001—which was supposed to make the country a model global citizen—was followed by massive investments in its military capabilities and territorial expansion in the South China Sea. And certainly the great trade between Ukraine and Russia did not stop Putin’s invasion in 2022." Deep down, military situations are more accurately predicted based on the weakness of a target. The easier it is to attack a target, the more enticing it is to do so, like in the pattern of scapegoating described above. Attacking a strong target means that one has to assess casualties and ponder what a loss would look like to one's own sovereignty. A deterrence. Initial attacks are usually on weak targets or on military that are unprepared for the kind of attack planned. Even further, the new slave wage system became a draw down on wages for all world markets so sooner or later the same system would knock on every door and demand entry into all countries.
Chinese state media calls for ‘people’s war’ as US trade conflict escalates: https://nypost.com/2019/05/14/chinese-state-media-calls-for-peoples-war-as-us-trade-conflict-escalates/
China declares a ‘people’s war’ after Trump’s latest tariff hikes: https://thechinaproject.com/2019/05/15/china-declares-a-peoples-war-after-trumps-latest-tariff-hikes/
Chinese scientists discover EIGHT never-before-seen viruses... and now they plan to experiment with them: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12665249/Chinas-discovered-EIGHT-never-seen-viruses-plan-experiment-them.html
REP. ROSENDALE REACTS TO REPORTS THAT WUHAN LAB SHIPPED CORONAVIRUS TO FAUCI-RUN LAB IN HAMILTON PRIOR TO PANDEMIC: https://rosendale.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=691
Increasingly, there have been complaints from populist political commentators worldwide, and a shift between the typical left and right has created strange alliances where now it has become a political a divide between oligarchs and the workers who feel exploited by them. Ex-democrats like Donald Trump, Kari Lake, and Steven Bannon are now in the Republican camp. Big business leaders and big government Marxists have now allied on the side of China and want a continuing of the current mercantilist policies. Populists compare the China One Belt One Road initiative to that of being not a partner with China but a colony with a negative trade balance to match. Part of being a colony means importing the empire politics which then influences local politicians. The original expectation after the fall of the Soviet Union was the countries like China would reform into a representative government like in the west, but in the end it went in the opposite direction.
'Let Me Finish!' Johnny Rotten Makes His Views on Donald Trump Heard | Good Morning Britain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uOwz_UrQ0
China Girl - David Bowie: https://youtu.be/imSPZt77sKo?si=GqTBSUfKxb5HlCIt
When the money goes from the exporters to the importers, it takes a foreign turn. Your home is where the money is and with globalism, the borders vanish, and as reported above, national values related to constitutions, and human rights are disregarded if the mercantilist country doesn't cherish them. It's just about naked money and power. The O'Keefe Media Group (OMG), for example, got an inside scoop on the giant investment group BlackRock and it became clear the view that people have when they have this much concentrated power.
"All of these financial institutions, they buy politicians."
"How do they run the world?"
"You acquire stuff. You diversify, you acquire, you keep acquiring. You spend whatever you make in acquiring more and at a certain point your risk level is super low...You own a little bit of everything and that little bit everything gives you so much money on a yearly basis, that you can take this big fuck-ton of money, and then you can start to buy people...We have a system in place. First there's the senators. These guys are fucking cheap. You got ten grand? You can buy a senator. It doesn't matter who wins. They're in my pocket at this point."
More exposés from Steve Bannon showed the power of lobbyists in the same vein as the HR guy above described during the recent fight for a new GOP speaker. Typically in a representative government it matters who wins and different parties provide a check and balance to each other, but if there's an angle to win personally at the expense of a country then the balance begins to vanish. While watching politics for some time recently since the 2020 election, a certain narcissistic tactic was starting to appear again and again that I recognized by terms like "love bombing" which is a euphemism for the Trojan Horse. Like in the ancient Greek story, it's all about using niceties to bring down the defenses of an enemy and then you attack them at a weak spot. This is used everywhere and there's a long list in politics that never ends. In this context of corrupt politicians it works like this: The politician tells an electorate that wants reform whatever it wants to hear. Then when they are in power they look to lobbyists for directions in order to get more financial rewards. Typically, this leads to retribution at the polls when the politician is grilled on their bad voting record and primaried by another candidate from the same party. The problem is that they've found out how to win even when they lose. Lobbyists can provide job offers and lucrative media contracts so that if they have to leave being a politician they are forgotten about, regain their anonymity, and have increased their prospects. During the fight for a new speaker, because Kevin McCarthy didn't achieve any objectives he agreed to after the election with Rep. Matt Gaetz and other holdouts, Bannon talked about how you "never give the apparatus a second to collect themselves, because they are going to come up and they're going to be spreading money around and cutting deals and bring in more people to their cause. Right? That's where the K-Street lobbyists come in...but I have spies everywhere...The lobbyists were literally walking around cutting deals with people at the tables...to vote against [Jim] Jordan."
Jenny Beth Martin: "Honestly Steve, do you think they are worried if they lose their seat? They're going to have a job lined up with one of those firms. They're going to get some book deal. They'll get a gig on CNN or MSNBC or wherever else they can go to bash all of us, so they know either way they will at least get to keep power and keep access to money and that's what they care about." The divide in the GOP between globalism and populism became very clear with the boos and the criticism of Rep. Matt Gaetz for taking small donations from the general public. "When it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute in this fight from those who would grovel and bend for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership. Oh boo all you want! Who have hollowed out this town and borrowed against the future of our future generations. I'll be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans, $10 and $20 and $30 dollars at a time and you all keep showing up at the lobbyist fundraisers and see how that goes for you."
Martin Explains The Establishment's Radical Resolution To Install McHenry As The Speaker Permanently: https://rumble.com/v3q5f4v-martin-explains-the-establishments-radical-resolution-to-install-mchenry-as.html
Bannon: "This is the early morning hours of 2016 all over again": https://rumble.com/v3ms086-bannon-this-is-the-early-morning-hours-of-2016-all-over-again.html
The Faux-Right Infiltrating The Republican Party, Destroying Our Nation - Jack Posobiec: https://rumble.com/v3todsd-jack-posobiec-the-faux-right-infiltrating-the-republican-party-destroying-o.html
Many of these lobbyists are all a part of the importing lobby and closely connected with China. Another exposé, this time by Tucker Carlson, unearthed a video from a Chinese economics professor that openly talks about CCP influence in the U.S., what political commentators call Elite Capture, or Pay For Play, where the strategy is to corrupt those who have power and leverage so that even if the population is aware of what's going on, they don't have enough power to do anything about it. The professor explained to an amused audience about how China and the U.S. were able to resolve problems quickly before Trump, it was "because we have people at the top. At the top of America's core inner circle of power & influence."
Tucker Carlson: Our elites' collusion with China is real and widespread: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-elites-china-collusion-di-dongsheng
Of course lobbyists will use all kinds of arguments in their favor and the value of their businesses and what contributions they make to society but usually with important information about their personal interests left out because owners can't really feel the same feelings that workers feel, and they are not likely to drop their contracts and fortunes if they suddenly feel a pang of shame. If ineligible organizations can make social policy without the say so of voters, then the conversion to a one-party state is complete, even if it isn't expressed openly. This also means that the psychological impacts resulting from these policies will continue on because they can't be addressed without upsetting the power balance. Lighthizer connected the emotional component of self-esteem, a recurring theme, that is crucial in all understanding of economics beyond abstraction. "A big part of the elites’ misunderstanding of the situation is that they have no appreciation for the social component of work. Those obsessed with efficiency tend to see employment simply as a means of allocating resources and ensuring production. In so doing, they greatly undervalue the personal dignity that individuals derive from meaningful work. Commentators from Pope Leo XIII in the nineteenth century to Arthur Brooks and Oren Cass today have written eloquently about the central role of work in a well-ordered society. Doing honest work for a decent wage instills feelings of self-worth that come from being needed and contributing to society. Stable, remunerative employment reinforces good habits and discourages bad ones. That makes human beings into better spouses, parents, neighbors, and citizens. By contrast, the loss of personal dignity that comes from the absence of stable, well-paying employment is not something that can be compensated for either by increased consumption of low-cost imported goods or by welfare checks."
Counter arguments from the globalization side would put onus on workers to find retraining and enter more lucrative areas of the free market. "Those that claim that the benefits of interdependence or efficiency justify the costs free trade places on the American working class often argue this negative impact can be offset by retraining that helps workers move into new service sector or technology jobs. In theory, retraining may sound attractive, but this phenomenon has failed to materialize. Compared with those who lost their jobs in earlier periods of economic change, displaced workers in modern, developed economies typically have fewer and less attractive options. Historically speaking, this was not always the case. In the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century, for example, the repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws prompted agricultural workers to flee the countryside for industrializing urban areas where factory jobs were waiting. By contrast, the American factory workers who were displaced beginning in the 1990s either had nowhere to go or ended up working in low-skill, low-paying service jobs...The technology sector, for all its virtues, is not a source of high-paying jobs for working people. Over half of the United States’ roughly 250 million adults lack a college diploma. Historically, manufacturing jobs have been the best source of stable, well-paying employment for this cohort. Perhaps with massive new investments in education, former autoworkers could be taught to code. Even so, there probably wouldn’t be enough jobs to employ them all. Apple, Facebook, Google, and Netflix collectively employ just over 300,000 people—less than half the number that General Motors alone employed in the 1960s...Moreover, the service and technology jobs most accessible to working people, such as data entry and call center jobs, are themselves vulnerable to offshoring. Economists have estimated that nearly forty million service sector jobs in the United States could eventually be sent overseas. That’s more than three times the number of current manufacturing jobs in the country. People without college degrees face increasingly steep obstacles to obtaining stable, well-paying jobs. In sum, the United States has not taken adequate measures to put its own workers first...No great economy in the world has ever given up on manufacturing. To the contrary, they are all for the most part based on it. The vast majority of international trade is in manufactured goods and agriculture. The best jobs for high school graduates are in manufacturing. Most innovation in our economy is in this area. A prosperous, successful future needs a flourishing manufacturing sector...Losing manufacturing jobs, the United States also 'broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today’s ‘commodity’ manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow’s emerging industry.' In every economy, a great deal of innovation comes from manufacturing, and this innovation usually takes place very close to the place of manufacturing. The engineers on the ground are the ones who incorporate much of what we call productivity gains."
For Lighthizer, the response to mercantilist policies is to use tariff leverage to open up markets. "...We should just go to the countries keeping our competitive products out and demand more access. This was our approach in the Trump administration. Countries with enormous trade surpluses with the United States have a lot more to lose from our taking concessions away. We have leverage and should use it...We [also] need to create value to buy things from importers. Of course, some services are exportable, such as banking or professional services, but most are not (think food services or health care)."
The consequences of leaving those without advanced degrees behind is one of an inability to make ends meet, save money, and enter the ownership economy, which allows for more independent political views. If wages are made to be as low as possible then those workers will be unable to invest and the profits earned from lowering wages will just coalesce with a smaller group of owners. Victor Davis Hanson reminds the reader that "we need [the Middle Class] to be present, because without this present, you do not have these independent voices...Unfortunately in our generation it's eroding and we can see it erode in a variety of contexts. The first is, for ten years average wages of the middle class did not rise. Fifty-percent of the country dies with less than $10,000 in aggregate wealth. Over half of Americans die with credit card debt. Their buying options are limited and their choices on how they live are limited. Their chances of home ownership decline simply because they owe a lot of debt. Nowhere is this more dramatic than in student loans. When the student graduates, the average loan is somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000. We have an entire generation of students that are graduating, often with therapeutic degrees and are not able to find jobs that would allow them to pay off this enormous debt. If we came from Mars and looked at the situation, we would just simply say 'you have tens of thousands of serfs or indentured servants. If they are not beholden to their credit card, they are beholden to the federal government and the universities."
The Middle Class and Why Its Disappearing | Victor Davis Hanson: https://youtu.be/r8GeHGQK6fU?si=63QxelPH_gp0yfTt
The sensitive topic of illegal immigration also factors in big when it comes to whether people have a chance to enter the middle class. Labor, like anything in the market, falls under the forces of supply and demand. Wages are dear when employers have to compete for skilled labor that is scarce. Now that the U.S. southern border since 2021 has been opened to millions of illegal immigrants in the United States the pressure is always to renegotiate wages down, including those illegal immigrants who ironically have to compete with each other in the same bottleneck, keeping all of them out of a savings and ownership economy. The divide between the America First and George W. Bush influenced GOP became clear. Since retiring, Bush Jr. has been painting, including portraits of immigrants, and he provided his critique. "It's a beautiful country we have and yet it's not beautiful when we condemn and call people names and scare people about immigration. It's an easy issue to frighten some of the electorate, and I'm trying to have a different kind of voice. I would describe [the current Republican party] as isolationist, protectionist, and to a certain extent nativist." Nativist being a euphemism for racist. One can infer that there's a self-hatred going along with this line of reasoning, but it also ignores the parallel development in psychology to counter co-dependency, where it's common to hear healthcare workers admonished to take care of themselves better, say no, and have boundaries because you can't help others if you can't help yourself. One wonders when politicians around the world will catch on. Bush's view on immigration isn't a completely open border but it should be "pro-enforcement with a compassionate touch." He hinted a bit that he may also be out of touch in the Today interview when he conceded that "[the current Republican view] is not exactly my vision, but I'm just an old guy they put out to pasture, just a simple painter."
George W. Bush: Immigration System 'Needs To Be Reformed' | TODAY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqJDPSPUZ44
Former President George W. Bush releases new book about America's immigrants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y1L-ZGDTuk
The quiet comfortable interview unfortunately blurred details and was also dated since the new administration has allowed unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants undocumented into the country, including in the years up to now. Bush's idea of having more courts and a new vetting system is just another thing that is imaginary but not actually a reality, like his ownership society, which ended up being a debtor society. Lower wages means slave wages, but all politicians would raise their hand if asked if they were against slavery. The topic of having people of different ethnic backgrounds working for cheap is hardly an image to advertise for immigrants who also want to be in the middle class. Bush's view goes back to the old story that certain jobs won't be filled because the wages are too low. "We need to change the work visas. There's a lot of jobs that are empty, and there's a lot of jobs that need to be filled, and there are people willing to work hard to do so." The plight of the middle class is ignored. Biden whispering "pay them more" is not going to magically raise the wages, especially when he opened the border wide open. The negative trade balance was also ignored in this interview. Illegal voting with easy-t0-get driver's licenses was not broached, including changes done in 2019 before the 2020 election. Illegal immigration, especially in the U.S. led to an increase in drug and human trafficking. There are also worries now after the war for Israel has begun that there maybe terrorists that have crossed the open border, which evaporated the entire purpose of Bush's Homeland Security initiatives. The Biden Administration even went further with a trial balloon to just merge the former NAFTA countries into an E.U. style regional government showing how settled their globalist view is.
Biden on Work Shortages, Tells Employers to Pay Workers More: https://youtu.be/h9wANPpPL98?si=5AvnKKKdCWzjRBf9
Governor Josh Shapiro announces switch to Automatic Voter Registration: https://twitter.com/GovernorShapiro/status/1704095982193877181
Lara Logan claims migrants are part of a globalist plot for a unified North American government: https://www.mediamatters.org/one-america-news-network/oan-lara-logan-claims-migrants-are-part-globalist-plan-unified-government
Trial Balloon Merger With Canada Mexico and the U.S - Tucker Carlson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jy1pIrWP44
Donald Trump upset this current establishment which responded with their fear of what reform meant for them and projected it onto the population, except for the fact the establishment didn't have, and still doesn't have, anything the general public would find exciting from them. Who wants debt slavery? Who wants stagflation? Who wants endless wars? In an emotional false-start resignation letter, General Milley made an assumption that Trump was "ruining the international order..." which he misinterpreted as being connected to the Greatest Generation in WWII, which I think would have a bone to pick with this current international order. I'm sure some did support the U.N., the Marshall Plan, etc., but I'm sure that many, if not most, were fighting for their country, and their children, not some nebulous and shifting international order with faceless bureaucrats that resist reforms. Regardless of political labels, this craven behavior should now be expected in any situation where there is a power differential and there's a threat of reform, meaning that people will lose their money and position with said reforms. Each side that reforms another side has a hatred of the people who are gumming up the works and wants them gone. Those who are to be fired feel castrated and mortified. The success or failure of any reform will have to rest with how many people it frees up and helps to thrive while at the same time removes obvious corruption, which always requires vigilance because for many people, corruption is a way of life and it seems unconscionable that enough money can be made with goods and services alone.
‘Your husband is the worst president. You owe us gas money’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQv5cMSFkdE
Dick Cheney calls Trump a coward "He Lost. He Knows It": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Nq9SpGzic
😂 Posobiec: I present to you, my dramatic reading of the General Milley resignation letter: https://rumble.com/v1fmezx--posobiec-i-present-to-you-my-dramatic-reading-of-the-general-milley-resign.html
Gen Mark Milley: I Had My Resignation Letter Ready for Trump: https://rumble.com/v3ih4ck-gen-mark-milley-i-had-my-resignation-letter-ready-for-trump.html
When you have a weak population that is like a colony, under taxation without representation, what would it look like? We already covered what it looks like now, which is very compromised, but what would it look like if all dissident reformers are put in jail? The world got a taste of that when the former President of the PRC Hu Jintao was escorted out in a way that looked disconcerting and humiliating to western audiences. Chinese media stated that "When [Hu] was not feeling well during the session, his staff, for his health, accompanied him to a room next to the meeting venue for a rest. Now, he is much better." Some commentators joked that his aids told him "death is a serious condition if you're not careful." Other commentators felt it was more of a middle ground. "What we just saw was the making of an All Xi's Men team, the breaking of decade-long rules, and the birth of an unlimited supreme leader...He is now a truly modern emperor." Hu Jintao did make another appearance later at Jiang Zemin's funeral with Xi Jinping in Dec 2022 showing that at least he wasn't dead. I talked to one Chinese woman who immigrated to Canada about it and she said "we [were] not allowed to talk about that." She found it surprising in Canada when looking at Twitter and all the aggressive back and forth between debaters of different political stripes and how it was possible to criticize top leaders with unlimited sarcasm and derision. This would be a hint that complete freedom of speech would have to end in order to consolidate power to one political aim. Dissent would have to be hidden and kept in closed door meetings and each prospective leader would have to be subservient and then make power grabs at all the right times before ascending to leadership, usually when the prior dictator has gotten too old. Any missteps could lead to expulsion, house arrest or execution.
For example, Zhao Ziyang, the leader who was more favorable to the students at the Tiananmen, lived under house arrest and was allowed some freedoms while being watched intently. His views on Communism grew more towards freedom as time passed. "We needed to establish multiple channels for dialogue—with various social factions, forces, and interests. Decisions on major issues should be made with ongoing consultation and dialogue with various social groups, not just within the Communist Party, and not only after merely consulting once with key figures of other political parties...We had to permit social groups to exist; otherwise, how could dialogue be conducted? Most important, we needed to change the situation in which all social groups—including workers’ unions, youth organizations, women’s organizations, chambers of commerce, and others—were all in monotonous unity with the Communist Party. They should not be treated like the Party’s royal instruments. They have to be able to truly represent the people they are meant to represent. Only dialogue conducted with groups of this kind would carry any real meaning. In other words, their function as intermediate organizations should be fully developed. The Communist Party should not take control of everything or interfere so much in their affairs, and should give them room for independent activities...We must establish laws that guarantee the protection of specific aspects, for example, freedom of association, assembly, demonstrations, petitions, and strikes. All these should be protected by specific laws." Of course these reforms never came to pass. His son Zhao Wujun said that "Zhao lived to see the consequences of rapid, unfettered economic growth in the absence of checks on government powers–rampant corruption, crony capitalism, one of the widest wealth gaps in the world and widespread social discontent...The things he wanted to do were abandoned…more than a decade of his sweat and blood was ruined in an instant...We have missed a huge historical opportunity to transform society. I don’t know if history will give us another chance."
Hu Jintao's Removal - CCP 20th National Congress: https://archive.ph/20221022153634/https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/1583829797297598465
Xi Jinping and Hu Jintao were on hand to bid farewell to Jiang Zemin: https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20221205-1340592
Son of purged reformer Zhao Ziyang tells of China's 'shame', 25 years after Tiananmen: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2014/05/son-purged-zhao-ziyang-tells-chinas-shame/
AI WEIWEI: NEVER SORRY - Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYFOzP6Xns
Getting centralized control to give up power is one of the most difficult knots to untie for any reformers in any country, and this was not lost on presidential candidate Javier Milei who described leftist politics in his country as being seduced by Antonio Gramsci. Tucker in a couple of episodes also interviewed an Argentine economist and a business owner about what the economy is like in Argentina, before getting Javier's take on the situation. "We are 47 million people, out of which 11 million people have what you call a job. Slightly under 3.5 million people work for government, and 7 million people work in the private sector. So 10 to 11 million people out of 47, 25% of the people, [if you take out government workers], 1/7th of the population will have a private job...7 million people are working to support the other 40 million people. 60% of the children are poor...In Argentina the incentives now are so perversely inverted that many people decide that it's not worth working. They can make more money sitting home idle." To a restaurant owner this was due to high taxes and expensive union dues. The psychological impact of this kind of system was described by Javier like the typical Cycle of Abuse and The Battered Wife, where "politicians are kind of sociopaths. They want to believe that we are mentally disabled, disabled in every way, because we cannot live without them. In fact, they are the ones who cannot live without us." One of the ideas he warned Tucker about was "the idea that where there is a need there is a right. It's a problem because there can be infinite needs but someone always has to pay for those rights, and the resources for that are finite. That sparks a conflict between infinite needs and finite resources...Under my administration...they should have no reason to complain. There won't be any layoffs in the first round of reforms, and when the second round of reforms takes place, they will be able to leave behind their public sector jobs, because they will have an incentive to do so, and they will be paid better." Considering that Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the U.S. are currently under lawfare by their opponents, I think Javier will have to put on his seatbelt if he thinks the opposition will make it easy for him to just walk in and make changes.
Javier Milei. Who is he? - Tucker Carlson: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1702442099814342725
Bolsonaro Again Ruled Ineligible to Hold Public Office by Brazil Electoral Court: https://news.yahoo.com/bolsonaro-again-ruled-ineligible-hold-232806102.html
Trump’s presidential ballot eligibility on trial in Colorado and Minnesota: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/trump-14th-amendment-trials-colorado-minnesota
Prosecutor files case against Argentina’s frontrunner Javier Milei days before presidential election: https://apnews.com/article/milei-picardi-peso-fernandez-argentina-02db52be25b493ca0f1d10fec9d6f017
It's best not to forget that when you trade with people, or if you are involved with people in friendships or intimate relationships, you are receiving strong signals from people who need repeated confirmations that they are respected. Many others need confirmations that they are special and superior. China expert Jack Posobiec worked in China and remembered how focused the Chinese were in wanting to turn the tables on the U.S. "I'll never forget this one. These are people I worked with by the way, and they weren't saying this in a hateful way or an angry way. They were just saying it matter of fact. They said 'we want to see a world where Chinese parents are one day adopting American babies.'" It's safe to assume that when you deal with people there are always hidden concerns in the background about power, self-esteem, envy, jealousy, and resentment.
China is going to eat our lunch - Jack Posobiec: https://rumble.com/v2r7ocg-jack-posobiec-chinas-going-to-eat-our-lunch..html
Even if reforms seem clear that there should be more work and production, with a reducing of some government spending, along with a reduction of interest rates, and how that will resurrect an economy, some of these economic principles are going to be challenged by the incoming developments of Artificial Intelligence (A.I). If the technology develops as quickly as developers contend it will, you'll have a situation of overproduction when the newly unemployed can't buy any products produced by the A.I. that replaced them. If there's a minimum income introduced, and if taxes are implemented to replace all the wages lost, what will life be like? Will a universal basic income allow the same human freedoms as before? What would psychology look like if one just pursued hobbies and didn't have to go to work? Would the lack of power when there are no wages or labor to negotiate with lead to another form of slavery?
