I imported steel from china for 8 years for a profile you can not secure in the U.S. No way, No how! It was clearly stated in my exemption that "it was NOT a hazard to national security." Then it suddenly became a detriment to national security despite the fact it still could not be procured due to not being manufactured in the U.S. Which way is it?
So I sold my business and retired. That put truckers and warehousemen out of work. Now that's a National hazard, I'd say!!!
Write to your congress members about your reality! They need a reality check...since trump is so far disconnected from he reality that IS. Whatever you write, dare to send it to the Commerce Secretary
idiots do not read..especially trump...and he was elected, after the Jan 6th murders - twice !!!!!!!!! No wonder we are in this total mess. Yes, controlling the lies/narrative of FOX, internets botes and yes influencers - Joe I mean YOU...had an awful lot to do with it. FACT CHECKING with AI should be easy enough to regulate - INDEPENDENTLY OF COURSE !
Seems like your comment to me was a non-sequitor...yes, I agree that trump doesn't read. Yes, he's an idiot - but he's convinced millions of people that he's a business genius (sadly). I think your comment to Joe (Politano) should be directed to him and NOT to me. Is he going to see it embedded here? I was responding to a guy named Mike, not a guy named Joe.
Prez Trump did not convince a large part of the population of the US that he is a great business man by himself. It was done - over many years - by journalists looking for an easy story, by producers & networks looking for fast money. CNN kept airing his election performances because many watched, thus many ads sold, lots of money made. Consequences be damned. In the US money will always TRUMP everything else.
My point was that others made possible for Mr. Trump to seem something he was not. He shone in the (despicable) The Apprentice thanks to the beauty of editing. People working on the program saw him stumble and fumble, but were muzzled by NDA's. Maybe these should be declared null&void when it comes to positions of importance?
The large earnings made producers and networks forget, or just push aside, important responsibilities they had. That is where changes could be made too.
He stiffed a lot of vendors, why was there not more reporting done on that? Was it the fear for defamation lawsuits?
And he is not an idiot (like some think). He saw a chance to enrich himself, his family, his acolytes, those he is indebted to, those he thinks he can use later on - and he went for it. How is it possible that for the most important job in this country there are no requirements? His co.'s did a lot of business in Russia, should that not have disqualified him?
You read a lot, I do too, but I also watch Fox"News" from time to time. That is when I get really scared.
Excellent point that needs amplification on the issue of metals, plastics and probably a huge number of other items: They are mixtures -- in the case of metals, what we call alloys. Steels are not all alike, but Trump and Navarro seem to think that steel is just steel. The point of specialty steel mills is that properties of steel vary with the mixture and treatment (tempering, for example), and it is often the case that there is only one mill making a specific steel for the whole world. For example, I used to work with a special knife manufactured in PA with steel from Japan, because there was only one worldwide source for that special steel. The same reality applies to all other metals and many other materials. Plastics notably fall into this situation, which is one reason why plastics can be hard to recycle (and why we have concerns about chemicals, such as phthalates coming off plastics over time into food).
What else is new? Years ago a couple from the UK bought a business in CA, extended it, started a second one. When I met them they had about thirty employees (some part-time). That all disappeared when they had to self-deport, back to the UK. (Under Prez Obama). When I called around to politicians I discovered that many did not even know the rule that forced this family out, others did not care.
The key challenge for Trump is that the Trade Court used a line of argument that is incredibly clever. It comports totally with the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, with an analysis that brings the responsibility for tariffs back to Congress as an Article 1 power, and it re-emphasizes the need for Congress to act on what is clearly a "Major Question". The issues of proper procedure in notifying Congress and providing evidence will appeal to the likes of Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, perhaps even Roberts. If the appellate court writes a similarly cogent and precise opinion backing the Trade Court, you may see the Supreme Court ducking the issue. They will have the option either to deny certiorari, or they may allow the justices who tend to favor presidential power to avoid embarrassment (Alito, perhaps Thomas) with a per curiam decision. Oh, to be a fly on the wall, to hear, most likely, Sotomayor and perhaps Jackson, haranguing their colleagues on the key issue of "...and where is the supposed emergency -- a narcotics crisis that has been evolving over more than a decade?" and "where are the notices to Congress, and did the president's legal counsel even read the trade law specifications and limits?".
In addition to your comprehensive comment about the decision that the Trade Court issued (From Lawrence O’Donnell):
“…for the benefit of the United States Supreme Court, the trade experts on the Court of International Trade wrote a brief history of international trade right in their opinion and a brief history of international trade law for Donald Trump's Supreme Court justices to study because they know very little about international trade law.”
[And, I really love this part of the whole story, which no MSM is reporting; in order to get a stay from the appeals court, Trump promised to send refund checks to those who paid his illegal Trump tariffs. TACO!]:
Lawrence O’Donnell reported that,
“….on page 25 of the Trump lawyers pleading to the appeals court today for a stay in the case, Donald Trump's lawyers put this promise from Donald Trump in writing to the appeals court, quote, “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post judgment interest that accrues. And a huge amount of interest could accrue on the tariffs that have already been paid.”
From The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell: Lawrence: 'Irreversibly stupid' Trump's biggest tariff 'humiliation day' has yet to come, May 29, 2025
I think by "not serious" when discussing the Trump rationales for tariffs, Mr. Politano might actually mean "detached from reality." That's what keeps me awake at nights: How disconnected from the real world the Trump Administration's actions are, and how consistently they ignore the adverse consequences of their actions. The attacks on academe, for instance, will have lasting effects on American soft power, but you wouldn't know it listening to the MAGA cheerleaders. Loose talk about Canada will result in a huge drop in Canadian tourism. Similarly, the "mass deportations" are primarily performative cruelty meant to frighten people and stir the loins of the MAGA crowd, but they will drive up prices for services just as certainly as tariffs drive up the prices of goods. You can promise a return to American greatness and low prices all you want, but people will notice when you fail to deliver, even if they turn away from the daily chaos of the Trump Administration's churning of the political waters.
The trump administration doesn't care about consequences, only action. The fact that they and their friends are further enriched by the huge stock market swings is a bonus, especially since he will just pardon anyone charged with insider trading. This is starting the feel like netanyahu's later stage incursion into Gaza, action, action, action without a real plan except to destroy Gaza and pick through the rubble for bits of gold.
On top of being disconnected from the real world, they appear to also have been disconnected from what matters in a court of law: The kind of application of logic that gives judges the opportunity to rule in accordance to a legal argument.
The incompetence of the legal work being done for the Trump Administration is evident in almost every case that's been brought after Trump's second inauguration. Over on Fox News, the commenters think that the lawsuits being filed against Trump's executive orders are frivolous. The judges of these cases, more often than not, are finding that it's not the cases, but the arguments brought by Trump's often-incompetent lawyers that are frivolous. This is what happens when you purge the DOJ and value loyalty over expertise.
Fox "News" is not longer reporting - if it ever did. Their commentators are now steering the discussions and they tell politicians what to think - and what to do. Some of its pundits made it into this administration.
Reading this from outside the U.S., one has to ask, is the United States of America still a functioning country or are we witnessing the collapse of the whole enchilada (sorry, needed to get a taco reference in)? It seems that by the machinations of the 3 branches of government it is no longer capable of coming up with coherent direction forward. How does anyone ever get anything done? The calliope seems about to crash to the ground (apologies Bruce).
The people in power are not interested in moving the country forward; on the contrary. They are interested in removing every change made since FDR was elected. That's been the dream of every Republican politician for their entire lifetimes.
Economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, Claudia Sahm and professional economists in America should submit a voluntary testimony to Appellate Court that there was and there is no economic emergency to impose ‘Liberation day’ tariffs.
A signed letter by all economists should be drafted giving expert opinion and submitted to Appellate court. This daily Dog & Pony show of Tariff announcements by Trump regime should be put to an end and people should do whatever in their capacity to intervene on this matter.
Economists should start coordinating to draft this letter
It's a good idea, but they'll need a lawyer to file what's called an amicus brief, AKA "friend of the court" brief. How far that would go with the court is up in the air, but I suppose it's worth a try.
So, a "court — a real court, with lifetime judges — has ruled most of Trump’s trade war unconstitutional." Trump's been ruled constitutional before with no more effective but appeals and delays, if any effect at all. Interesting to worry about SCOTUS backing Trump iis premature to much expect SCOTUS - Roberts Barrett and the !jobs - to.rule against Trump. What then? Can Scouts sufficiently care Trump to bet compliance? Effectively enforce a decision with Marshalls?
Fixing the intended next-to-last sentence of my comment: It’s premature to much expect SCOTUS - Roberts, Comey Barrett and the Libs - to rule against Trump.
You interview such knowledgeable people and do it in such a way that we can learn so much on things we maybe didn't know existed. Please keep doing it.
Those of us with pain issues are all too aware (and on a very personal level) of what is true, and what is not as far as fentanyl (and Trump's lies) go.
Sure, there is somme fentanyl crossing the Canadian border, and more crossing the Mexican border.
But these numbers together pale before the amount of fentanyl that is "muled" into America on flights landing in the precise cities the fentanyl is intended to be sold in.
After all, fentanyl is very valuable, so even small quantities are worth smuggling.
So why would fentanyl manufacturers in China send fentanyl to Canada or Mexico (except in instances of sending materials to complete manufacture), just to be forced to frequently lose sight of the product as it spends up to several days crossing the Mexico or Canada/USA border, and traveling to its intended destination?
Sure, if it manufacture is finalized in either country, or for some reason a shipment may be too huge for human mules to be practical it sometimes happens.
But it's so much faster (when time = $$$) to send it with an unlimited number of human mules, placing it in the "sales location" quickly, and without eyes ever leaving the product. Every justification Trump uses is a destructive lie.
(Policies of the DEA are STILL the reason that 10% of American suicides are the result of poor pain management. Trump's lies make that suffering all the more justified in the eyes of Americans, so the truth is very personal in this issue.)
Had Trump not cancelled expenditures to purchase 100 fentanyl detectors that could have been used at airports or border crossings.
It ALMOST seems like Trump WANTS the issue with fentanyl to continue.
As always, the strategy with mules is to use as many as possible, knowing some will be caught. That's been the strategy for decades, regardless of the drug smuggled. (And remember, fentanyl may greater commercial value than any other thus far, so not so many have to reach the target. to be worth a great deal.)
As I said elsewhere (tongue-in-cheek) the US should not have kicked out all those workers, but given them jobs opening suitcases, packages, parcels, etc. and waving wands.
I assume that the bill you mention had other provisions in it, that Prez Trump did not agree with?
As did the immigration bill that Biden proposed, and so many members of the GOP found acceptable that Trump had to spend time contacting them and threatening them against allowing Biden anything of substance. I'm sure you remember that at the time it seemed to have a uncommonly high chance of passing...until Trump found out about Biden's evil plans to do exactly what Trump also wanted.
I think we all know that there is nothing that could possibly be in any bill that means as much to Trump as maintaining the illusion that an open border creates a world of fear, crime, drugs and stollen(sic) jobs.
For decades...indeed ever since the world adopted Keynesian Economics the rational economist operating under the assumption of a government that was, in general, acting in the public interest made sense.
The interview above speaks to this sensibility.
Many words were communicated speaking about the clearly silly idea that Trump should have emergency powers to, in this case, change US trade policy.
These are comforting words.
They are also foolish in the extreme.
Trump has nobody's interests at heart but his own. This is true of Elon Musk. This is true of a critical mass of oligarchy. They are "extractive minded" a la Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson.
For reasons to be debated elsewhere SCOTUS continues to defer to Trump. And SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of such.
As Justice Jackson noted in a recent immigration case: “[this] allows the Government to do what it wants to do regardless [of the consequences], rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process.”
Contrary to the TACO graveyard whisperers, Trump will not be backing down from his Trade Policy vision of grandiosity (if he can't win a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the Russia/Ukraine war, he will gain adulation by bringing manufacturing home to the US). The guy, while not POTUS and while under multiple indictments, gave testimony next to a Judge that could (and did) fine him enough to bankrupt him...and he NEVER backed down 1 inch from his manifestly false claims.
Betting on TACO seems silly.
Betting that SCOTUS will impose its will on Trump may be even sillier.
It was hard to click “Like” on your comments because there’s nothing to like about the horror of the realities you mentioned.
To extend Paul Krugman’s famous characterization, the Federal government under tRump 2.0 is an insurance company with an army under the control of a grabby child with permissive parents, who are secretly rooting for him to successfully grab every shiny bauble he desires. His method for grabbing what he wants is to reach through loopholes, and our system is replete with them. And when all loopholes have been exhausted, his permissive SCROTUS parents are there to either give him what he wants outright, as in the decision that he cannot be charged with any crime committed as President, or to give him a performative slap on the wrist (see the 9-0 decision that purposefully used the word “facilitate”, a brand new loophole that gave him what he wanted all along).
As someone in the "Contrarian" opined, it's probably unfortunate that a reporter informed DonnyJon about "TACO" because he's likely to quit chickening out. I tend to agree.
I'm sure Natalie Harp, Trump's "human printer" and majority mediator of his relationship with reality initially kept that from him and then produced page after page once he was confronted with it, which got him quite angry.
I'm not sure which version of Trump's past has given rise to this TACO thing. Roy Cohn preached, "No matter what happens you claim victory and never admit defeat. You have to be willing to do anything to anyone."
I've known of the guy since the late 80s when I worked at Chase who was one of the banks who ended up forcing him to restructure his debt. He could have made a much better deal a year earlier but he would not back down.
I get that TACO is funny and makes people feel better. I also think it is an obfuscatory frame within which to contemplate his next steps.
From what I've read, it started with Wall Street traders. At first, the market went up and down with every move of the tariffs. Then traders began reassuring each other that the tariffs wouldn't last - "Trump Always Chickens Out." As long as it stayed in the market community, that was fine, but when it leaked, some newshound took it to DonnyJon. I'm sure Harp wasn't aware of it before that incident.
It was a young CNBC reporter who asked him about it.
And I'm sure Natalie read about it beforehand.
As Michael Wolff describes: "In doing this, she became a significant gatekeeper. Trump was frequently seen with a cache of papers. He would often demand time in his schedule to go over “my papers.” (In the past, he had militantly eschewed papers.) His workload—“my papers”—was almost entirely what Natalie had printed out. The curation was largely her own. Hers was solely a good-news printer—and she, a worshipful acolyte.
Wolff, Michael. All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America (p. 32). Crown. Kindle Edition.
"...he (Scott Bessent) was like, 'the dollar isn't losing value, other currencies are gaining value.'"
Wow! And this guy is supposed to be the smart one in Trump's administration. His whole understanding of international currency values reminds me of how the citizens of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon feel about their children. The currencies and the kids are each all above average.
The above and other statements by Bessent make me wonder...is he really that stupid or does he have to say the stupid things he says to keep his job in an administration that has made a fetish out of saying stupid things? Given how important the Treasury Secretary will be in the next financial crisis, I hope it's the former. But I suspect it's the latter.
Declaring everything a 'national emergency' is Donald's Trump card. He can probably get away with it as long as the feckless Republican Congress looks the other way. If he defies the courts, the only remedy for a rogue president is impeachment and we know that isn't going to happen.
The most disturbing thing to me is how our right-wing Supreme Court is enabling Trump's budding dictatorship and dystopian policies. They just ruled half a million asylum seekers who are here legally now face deportation and even execution if returned to their home countries. That is unconscionable, and so much for being the 'land of the free and home of the brave.'
That is just a sentence in the national anthem, not a characteristic of the US. Deportations and denial of asylum have happened many a time over the past 30 years. In 1996 this country enacted the "anti-immigrant" law. Democrats voted in favor too. Thanks to this law migrants were forced to go the dangerous routes: risk drowning in the river or perishing from thirst in the desert. Cruelty against legal (non-family)immigrants became more acceptable too. But no one cared and that is how it could escalate into what we observe now.
I expect the Extreme Court to jettison all the nuance we just saw while the Republican-controlled media falls over like fainting goats. Maybe Rachel Maddow will read a dissent from Sotomayor or something.
From what I can tell, free market fundamentalists are not actually fundamentalists, because they forget that choice is also an element in the market's ability to set prices and distribute resources, not just supply and demand.
One has to be able to be free to choose to buy and sell, or not, in such a system.
However, for many things that we try to use this system for, choice can be missing at some points along the way. Examples are healthcare (one may be faced with the choice of expensive treatment for cancer with only one being a option, or death). The "choice" to die, is not a real choice in my book. In the case of only one viable treatment, like with monopoly, choice is eliminated. Thus, there is little to control cost.
Another example are the bottom prices for wages (when there is no minimum wage) if wages get too low and people have to work nearly 24/7 to survive, they then do not have the time or money to go elsewhere or to get new skills. They have no choice but to sell their labor for next to nothing or starve. Laissez faire clearly did not work in this case as we saw in the early days of the industrial revolution.
Also, think about pollution, this cost and mess impacts all of us and with a free market system, how does one have a choice in the matter?
People promoting laissez faire, like many in the GOP or libertarians often ignore the element of "choice" as a factor which is critical in the way it is supposed to function in the first place, in the "efficient" allocation of resources. It seems odd that freedom touting libertarians lose sight of this element and often only apply it to the business owner or supplier and not the laborer or consumer, but it is meant to apply to all.
To me, the main thing is to find out where barriers exist and if they can't be removed, then these are areas of an economy that perhaps is not best suited to fully free market rules and need be be dealt with with though other means.
Free market fundamentalists often are not what they claim to be, because they do not even apply all the rules.
This discussion, and presumably the courts as well, are overlooking that “emergency” means “until Congress has a chance to act on the matter.” If a plaintiff can show that Congress has cognizance of an event and has had the opportunity to act, then the emergency is over, whatever stories the administration may make up about the event.
Thank you so much for the transcript. As a visual learner, I do so much better reading than listening 💜💜💜👏👏
Same. I read the transcript
Transcript much faster and easier for me, too!
DO NOT FOLLOW LINK !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOVE = SCAM !
Wow. One weird trick can turn me into a genius.
Who knew?
I imported steel from china for 8 years for a profile you can not secure in the U.S. No way, No how! It was clearly stated in my exemption that "it was NOT a hazard to national security." Then it suddenly became a detriment to national security despite the fact it still could not be procured due to not being manufactured in the U.S. Which way is it?
So I sold my business and retired. That put truckers and warehousemen out of work. Now that's a National hazard, I'd say!!!
Write to your congress members about your reality! They need a reality check...since trump is so far disconnected from he reality that IS. Whatever you write, dare to send it to the Commerce Secretary
idiots do not read..especially trump...and he was elected, after the Jan 6th murders - twice !!!!!!!!! No wonder we are in this total mess. Yes, controlling the lies/narrative of FOX, internets botes and yes influencers - Joe I mean YOU...had an awful lot to do with it. FACT CHECKING with AI should be easy enough to regulate - INDEPENDENTLY OF COURSE !
Seems like your comment to me was a non-sequitor...yes, I agree that trump doesn't read. Yes, he's an idiot - but he's convinced millions of people that he's a business genius (sadly). I think your comment to Joe (Politano) should be directed to him and NOT to me. Is he going to see it embedded here? I was responding to a guy named Mike, not a guy named Joe.
Trump is smart enough to have been born rich, but not smart enough to learn ANYTHING about earning money without having his family name attached.
If EVERYTHING with my family name on it had failed for 50 years, I'd at least start investing in bonds. (Or change my family name.)
Funny
But true.
Thanks.
Prez Trump did not convince a large part of the population of the US that he is a great business man by himself. It was done - over many years - by journalists looking for an easy story, by producers & networks looking for fast money. CNN kept airing his election performances because many watched, thus many ads sold, lots of money made. Consequences be damned. In the US money will always TRUMP everything else.
Yes, I understand what you have said (I read a lot). Not news for me. So, what is your point? Another non-sequitor.
My point was that others made possible for Mr. Trump to seem something he was not. He shone in the (despicable) The Apprentice thanks to the beauty of editing. People working on the program saw him stumble and fumble, but were muzzled by NDA's. Maybe these should be declared null&void when it comes to positions of importance?
The large earnings made producers and networks forget, or just push aside, important responsibilities they had. That is where changes could be made too.
He stiffed a lot of vendors, why was there not more reporting done on that? Was it the fear for defamation lawsuits?
And he is not an idiot (like some think). He saw a chance to enrich himself, his family, his acolytes, those he is indebted to, those he thinks he can use later on - and he went for it. How is it possible that for the most important job in this country there are no requirements? His co.'s did a lot of business in Russia, should that not have disqualified him?
You read a lot, I do too, but I also watch Fox"News" from time to time. That is when I get really scared.
Excellent point that needs amplification on the issue of metals, plastics and probably a huge number of other items: They are mixtures -- in the case of metals, what we call alloys. Steels are not all alike, but Trump and Navarro seem to think that steel is just steel. The point of specialty steel mills is that properties of steel vary with the mixture and treatment (tempering, for example), and it is often the case that there is only one mill making a specific steel for the whole world. For example, I used to work with a special knife manufactured in PA with steel from Japan, because there was only one worldwide source for that special steel. The same reality applies to all other metals and many other materials. Plastics notably fall into this situation, which is one reason why plastics can be hard to recycle (and why we have concerns about chemicals, such as phthalates coming off plastics over time into food).
What else is new? Years ago a couple from the UK bought a business in CA, extended it, started a second one. When I met them they had about thirty employees (some part-time). That all disappeared when they had to self-deport, back to the UK. (Under Prez Obama). When I called around to politicians I discovered that many did not even know the rule that forced this family out, others did not care.
I'm amazed that you found a buyer.
"Stupid is, as stupid does..." Forrest Gump
The key challenge for Trump is that the Trade Court used a line of argument that is incredibly clever. It comports totally with the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, with an analysis that brings the responsibility for tariffs back to Congress as an Article 1 power, and it re-emphasizes the need for Congress to act on what is clearly a "Major Question". The issues of proper procedure in notifying Congress and providing evidence will appeal to the likes of Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, perhaps even Roberts. If the appellate court writes a similarly cogent and precise opinion backing the Trade Court, you may see the Supreme Court ducking the issue. They will have the option either to deny certiorari, or they may allow the justices who tend to favor presidential power to avoid embarrassment (Alito, perhaps Thomas) with a per curiam decision. Oh, to be a fly on the wall, to hear, most likely, Sotomayor and perhaps Jackson, haranguing their colleagues on the key issue of "...and where is the supposed emergency -- a narcotics crisis that has been evolving over more than a decade?" and "where are the notices to Congress, and did the president's legal counsel even read the trade law specifications and limits?".
In addition to your comprehensive comment about the decision that the Trade Court issued (From Lawrence O’Donnell):
“…for the benefit of the United States Supreme Court, the trade experts on the Court of International Trade wrote a brief history of international trade right in their opinion and a brief history of international trade law for Donald Trump's Supreme Court justices to study because they know very little about international trade law.”
[And, I really love this part of the whole story, which no MSM is reporting; in order to get a stay from the appeals court, Trump promised to send refund checks to those who paid his illegal Trump tariffs. TACO!]:
Lawrence O’Donnell reported that,
“….on page 25 of the Trump lawyers pleading to the appeals court today for a stay in the case, Donald Trump's lawyers put this promise from Donald Trump in writing to the appeals court, quote, “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post judgment interest that accrues. And a huge amount of interest could accrue on the tariffs that have already been paid.”
From The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell: Lawrence: 'Irreversibly stupid' Trump's biggest tariff 'humiliation day' has yet to come, May 29, 2025
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/id1316084734?i=1000710512478&r=277
This material may be protected by copyright.
I think by "not serious" when discussing the Trump rationales for tariffs, Mr. Politano might actually mean "detached from reality." That's what keeps me awake at nights: How disconnected from the real world the Trump Administration's actions are, and how consistently they ignore the adverse consequences of their actions. The attacks on academe, for instance, will have lasting effects on American soft power, but you wouldn't know it listening to the MAGA cheerleaders. Loose talk about Canada will result in a huge drop in Canadian tourism. Similarly, the "mass deportations" are primarily performative cruelty meant to frighten people and stir the loins of the MAGA crowd, but they will drive up prices for services just as certainly as tariffs drive up the prices of goods. You can promise a return to American greatness and low prices all you want, but people will notice when you fail to deliver, even if they turn away from the daily chaos of the Trump Administration's churning of the political waters.
The trump administration doesn't care about consequences, only action. The fact that they and their friends are further enriched by the huge stock market swings is a bonus, especially since he will just pardon anyone charged with insider trading. This is starting the feel like netanyahu's later stage incursion into Gaza, action, action, action without a real plan except to destroy Gaza and pick through the rubble for bits of gold.
On top of being disconnected from the real world, they appear to also have been disconnected from what matters in a court of law: The kind of application of logic that gives judges the opportunity to rule in accordance to a legal argument.
The incompetence of the legal work being done for the Trump Administration is evident in almost every case that's been brought after Trump's second inauguration. Over on Fox News, the commenters think that the lawsuits being filed against Trump's executive orders are frivolous. The judges of these cases, more often than not, are finding that it's not the cases, but the arguments brought by Trump's often-incompetent lawyers that are frivolous. This is what happens when you purge the DOJ and value loyalty over expertise.
Fox "News" is not longer reporting - if it ever did. Their commentators are now steering the discussions and they tell politicians what to think - and what to do. Some of its pundits made it into this administration.
Reading this from outside the U.S., one has to ask, is the United States of America still a functioning country or are we witnessing the collapse of the whole enchilada (sorry, needed to get a taco reference in)? It seems that by the machinations of the 3 branches of government it is no longer capable of coming up with coherent direction forward. How does anyone ever get anything done? The calliope seems about to crash to the ground (apologies Bruce).
The people in power are not interested in moving the country forward; on the contrary. They are interested in removing every change made since FDR was elected. That's been the dream of every Republican politician for their entire lifetimes.
Thank God for the wonks like Politano!
Economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein, Claudia Sahm and professional economists in America should submit a voluntary testimony to Appellate Court that there was and there is no economic emergency to impose ‘Liberation day’ tariffs.
A signed letter by all economists should be drafted giving expert opinion and submitted to Appellate court. This daily Dog & Pony show of Tariff announcements by Trump regime should be put to an end and people should do whatever in their capacity to intervene on this matter.
Economists should start coordinating to draft this letter
https://3rdworldecon.substack.com/p/economists-should-voluntarily-write
It's a good idea, but they'll need a lawyer to file what's called an amicus brief, AKA "friend of the court" brief. How far that would go with the court is up in the air, but I suppose it's worth a try.
So, a "court — a real court, with lifetime judges — has ruled most of Trump’s trade war unconstitutional." Trump's been ruled constitutional before with no more effective but appeals and delays, if any effect at all. Interesting to worry about SCOTUS backing Trump iis premature to much expect SCOTUS - Roberts Barrett and the !jobs - to.rule against Trump. What then? Can Scouts sufficiently care Trump to bet compliance? Effectively enforce a decision with Marshalls?
They did not rule that it's unconstitutional. They ruled that it's illegal.
Judges are lawyers. They do want the respect of other lawyers. Tariffs are taxes. Congress imposes them. Where does one bet on it?
Sorry, FT.
The "bet" you refer to was meant to be "" get," the sentence at issue "Can SCOTUS sufficiently scare Trump to get compliance?"
Fixing the intended next-to-last sentence of my comment: It’s premature to much expect SCOTUS - Roberts, Comey Barrett and the Libs - to rule against Trump.
You interview such knowledgeable people and do it in such a way that we can learn so much on things we maybe didn't know existed. Please keep doing it.
Those of us with pain issues are all too aware (and on a very personal level) of what is true, and what is not as far as fentanyl (and Trump's lies) go.
Sure, there is somme fentanyl crossing the Canadian border, and more crossing the Mexican border.
But these numbers together pale before the amount of fentanyl that is "muled" into America on flights landing in the precise cities the fentanyl is intended to be sold in.
After all, fentanyl is very valuable, so even small quantities are worth smuggling.
So why would fentanyl manufacturers in China send fentanyl to Canada or Mexico (except in instances of sending materials to complete manufacture), just to be forced to frequently lose sight of the product as it spends up to several days crossing the Mexico or Canada/USA border, and traveling to its intended destination?
Sure, if it manufacture is finalized in either country, or for some reason a shipment may be too huge for human mules to be practical it sometimes happens.
But it's so much faster (when time = $$$) to send it with an unlimited number of human mules, placing it in the "sales location" quickly, and without eyes ever leaving the product. Every justification Trump uses is a destructive lie.
(Policies of the DEA are STILL the reason that 10% of American suicides are the result of poor pain management. Trump's lies make that suffering all the more justified in the eyes of Americans, so the truth is very personal in this issue.)
So it is coming in by plane? Is that not a method that should be easily detectable?
It might have been...
Had Trump not cancelled expenditures to purchase 100 fentanyl detectors that could have been used at airports or border crossings.
It ALMOST seems like Trump WANTS the issue with fentanyl to continue.
As always, the strategy with mules is to use as many as possible, knowing some will be caught. That's been the strategy for decades, regardless of the drug smuggled. (And remember, fentanyl may greater commercial value than any other thus far, so not so many have to reach the target. to be worth a great deal.)
As I said elsewhere (tongue-in-cheek) the US should not have kicked out all those workers, but given them jobs opening suitcases, packages, parcels, etc. and waving wands.
I assume that the bill you mention had other provisions in it, that Prez Trump did not agree with?
As did the immigration bill that Biden proposed, and so many members of the GOP found acceptable that Trump had to spend time contacting them and threatening them against allowing Biden anything of substance. I'm sure you remember that at the time it seemed to have a uncommonly high chance of passing...until Trump found out about Biden's evil plans to do exactly what Trump also wanted.
I think we all know that there is nothing that could possibly be in any bill that means as much to Trump as maintaining the illusion that an open border creates a world of fear, crime, drugs and stollen(sic) jobs.
For decades...indeed ever since the world adopted Keynesian Economics the rational economist operating under the assumption of a government that was, in general, acting in the public interest made sense.
The interview above speaks to this sensibility.
Many words were communicated speaking about the clearly silly idea that Trump should have emergency powers to, in this case, change US trade policy.
These are comforting words.
They are also foolish in the extreme.
Trump has nobody's interests at heart but his own. This is true of Elon Musk. This is true of a critical mass of oligarchy. They are "extractive minded" a la Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson.
For reasons to be debated elsewhere SCOTUS continues to defer to Trump. And SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of such.
As Justice Jackson noted in a recent immigration case: “[this] allows the Government to do what it wants to do regardless [of the consequences], rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process.”
Contrary to the TACO graveyard whisperers, Trump will not be backing down from his Trade Policy vision of grandiosity (if he can't win a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the Russia/Ukraine war, he will gain adulation by bringing manufacturing home to the US). The guy, while not POTUS and while under multiple indictments, gave testimony next to a Judge that could (and did) fine him enough to bankrupt him...and he NEVER backed down 1 inch from his manifestly false claims.
Betting on TACO seems silly.
Betting that SCOTUS will impose its will on Trump may be even sillier.
It was hard to click “Like” on your comments because there’s nothing to like about the horror of the realities you mentioned.
To extend Paul Krugman’s famous characterization, the Federal government under tRump 2.0 is an insurance company with an army under the control of a grabby child with permissive parents, who are secretly rooting for him to successfully grab every shiny bauble he desires. His method for grabbing what he wants is to reach through loopholes, and our system is replete with them. And when all loopholes have been exhausted, his permissive SCROTUS parents are there to either give him what he wants outright, as in the decision that he cannot be charged with any crime committed as President, or to give him a performative slap on the wrist (see the 9-0 decision that purposefully used the word “facilitate”, a brand new loophole that gave him what he wanted all along).
Yes, David, you nailed it. Unfortunately
As someone in the "Contrarian" opined, it's probably unfortunate that a reporter informed DonnyJon about "TACO" because he's likely to quit chickening out. I tend to agree.
I'm sure Natalie Harp, Trump's "human printer" and majority mediator of his relationship with reality initially kept that from him and then produced page after page once he was confronted with it, which got him quite angry.
I'm not sure which version of Trump's past has given rise to this TACO thing. Roy Cohn preached, "No matter what happens you claim victory and never admit defeat. You have to be willing to do anything to anyone."
I've known of the guy since the late 80s when I worked at Chase who was one of the banks who ended up forcing him to restructure his debt. He could have made a much better deal a year earlier but he would not back down.
I get that TACO is funny and makes people feel better. I also think it is an obfuscatory frame within which to contemplate his next steps.
From what I've read, it started with Wall Street traders. At first, the market went up and down with every move of the tariffs. Then traders began reassuring each other that the tariffs wouldn't last - "Trump Always Chickens Out." As long as it stayed in the market community, that was fine, but when it leaked, some newshound took it to DonnyJon. I'm sure Harp wasn't aware of it before that incident.
It was a young CNBC reporter who asked him about it.
And I'm sure Natalie read about it beforehand.
As Michael Wolff describes: "In doing this, she became a significant gatekeeper. Trump was frequently seen with a cache of papers. He would often demand time in his schedule to go over “my papers.” (In the past, he had militantly eschewed papers.) His workload—“my papers”—was almost entirely what Natalie had printed out. The curation was largely her own. Hers was solely a good-news printer—and she, a worshipful acolyte.
Wolff, Michael. All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America (p. 32). Crown. Kindle Edition.
These "papers" substitute for those tedious daily briefings that he can't be bothered to listen to.
These printed pages literally create the fake reality in which he needs to exist.
Assuming Trumps don't become Kings of the US this will prove a fascinating field of study.
"...he (Scott Bessent) was like, 'the dollar isn't losing value, other currencies are gaining value.'"
Wow! And this guy is supposed to be the smart one in Trump's administration. His whole understanding of international currency values reminds me of how the citizens of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon feel about their children. The currencies and the kids are each all above average.
The above and other statements by Bessent make me wonder...is he really that stupid or does he have to say the stupid things he says to keep his job in an administration that has made a fetish out of saying stupid things? Given how important the Treasury Secretary will be in the next financial crisis, I hope it's the former. But I suspect it's the latter.
Declaring everything a 'national emergency' is Donald's Trump card. He can probably get away with it as long as the feckless Republican Congress looks the other way. If he defies the courts, the only remedy for a rogue president is impeachment and we know that isn't going to happen.
The most disturbing thing to me is how our right-wing Supreme Court is enabling Trump's budding dictatorship and dystopian policies. They just ruled half a million asylum seekers who are here legally now face deportation and even execution if returned to their home countries. That is unconscionable, and so much for being the 'land of the free and home of the brave.'
That is just a sentence in the national anthem, not a characteristic of the US. Deportations and denial of asylum have happened many a time over the past 30 years. In 1996 this country enacted the "anti-immigrant" law. Democrats voted in favor too. Thanks to this law migrants were forced to go the dangerous routes: risk drowning in the river or perishing from thirst in the desert. Cruelty against legal (non-family)immigrants became more acceptable too. But no one cared and that is how it could escalate into what we observe now.
Justices Jackson Brown and Sotomayor dissented.
I expect the Extreme Court to jettison all the nuance we just saw while the Republican-controlled media falls over like fainting goats. Maybe Rachel Maddow will read a dissent from Sotomayor or something.
Wow, just wow. A Twilight Zone episode, upside down in a funhouse mirror. What psychedelics is this administration on?
My guess is mushrooms.
Who knew there was brown acid left from Woodstock?
Apparently they found it.
I suspect they're sampling a blend of everything.
Well, the way the muskrat was bouncing around during the campaign, meth and bennies are definite candidates.
That's possible, but his big thing is Ketamine. he OD's on the stuff.
Today Noah Smith wrote:
"Now, I am no fan of market fundamentalism..."
From what I can tell, free market fundamentalists are not actually fundamentalists, because they forget that choice is also an element in the market's ability to set prices and distribute resources, not just supply and demand.
One has to be able to be free to choose to buy and sell, or not, in such a system.
However, for many things that we try to use this system for, choice can be missing at some points along the way. Examples are healthcare (one may be faced with the choice of expensive treatment for cancer with only one being a option, or death). The "choice" to die, is not a real choice in my book. In the case of only one viable treatment, like with monopoly, choice is eliminated. Thus, there is little to control cost.
Another example are the bottom prices for wages (when there is no minimum wage) if wages get too low and people have to work nearly 24/7 to survive, they then do not have the time or money to go elsewhere or to get new skills. They have no choice but to sell their labor for next to nothing or starve. Laissez faire clearly did not work in this case as we saw in the early days of the industrial revolution.
Also, think about pollution, this cost and mess impacts all of us and with a free market system, how does one have a choice in the matter?
People promoting laissez faire, like many in the GOP or libertarians often ignore the element of "choice" as a factor which is critical in the way it is supposed to function in the first place, in the "efficient" allocation of resources. It seems odd that freedom touting libertarians lose sight of this element and often only apply it to the business owner or supplier and not the laborer or consumer, but it is meant to apply to all.
To me, the main thing is to find out where barriers exist and if they can't be removed, then these are areas of an economy that perhaps is not best suited to fully free market rules and need be be dealt with with though other means.
Free market fundamentalists often are not what they claim to be, because they do not even apply all the rules.
This is a simple test that can be applied.
Absolutely. Not to mention the need to clamp down on monopolies, cartels, price fixing and anti-competative practices.
This discussion, and presumably the courts as well, are overlooking that “emergency” means “until Congress has a chance to act on the matter.” If a plaintiff can show that Congress has cognizance of an event and has had the opportunity to act, then the emergency is over, whatever stories the administration may make up about the event.