Rich Lowry editor of National Review has a sanguine take on the idea that America is getting ripped off because of tariffs. See the article here. Basically he seems to be saying that because under the current trade regime America is the envy of the world and has a commanding economic presence (ed note: for now) that system must be good for us. He offers some statistical references to supposedly prove it. The article was written a couple of days ago at NRO and distributed in other publications – note possible pay wall at NRO (reflecting balanced trade no doubt). Anyway he believes that the high tariff scenario will diminish our economic standing.
Our views here at Veritas PAC about the direction of Trumps trade maneuvers are supportive from their monetary policy possibilities as well as establishing strategic independence .
And so to Rich Lowry, here are some we think countervailing points:
We admit to coming from a nationalistic mindset, call it tribal if you want. We are for more fare or reciprocal tariffs in order to help keep extensive productive capacity in operation in our country and not in theory (as Lowry perhaps suggests is good enough) on the presumption that the variety of components necessary, skilled soft resources, raw materials and infrastructure are or would be readily at hand, just flip a switch or something.
When we had more doctrinaire free trade sympathies we did not realize the dark downsides and implications it creates — one world government — “world trade federations’ world health organizations, G summit this and G summit that, none of them to be trusted as they are hallmarks of heavily managed society inuring to one-world government and bureaucratized to the extent one must get permission to do something from Belgium rather than say Bismarck where people are governed by a freedom protecting Constitution.
Raw statistics particularly measured in dollars as we are finding out can hide a lot –how valuable are those dollars when the country that supposedly stands behind them in some way is so much in debt — many many many trillions at a minimum. That we just keep printing more and more money may not be a good reflection of economic activity even adjusted for inflation. If the medium of exchange we promote is not accepted how much is our wealth? And differing with Lowry, when as they say the SHTF, country X might be in need of something more edible than our software. And indeed our society and our families, our culture must be well protected, and in house as to primary needs because without them in the short term many could be dead.
For me the nationalistic sentiments (which have many fathers) referred to as MAGA and its trade policies are about vulnerability in a world that is still volatile. They are about not being a patsy – financing other countries socialism even if it is a downfall for them — because entertaining their lifestyle is long-term pathogenic for both of us. It is about not enhancing or being dependent on other nations for production while our capabilities not merely deteriorate but become lost.
One country doing and selling what they do best and buying from another country what they do best is the mantra of globalism which human nature being what it is is a stalking horse for one-world government to monitor and police the agreements. Of course cheater countries abound because they take the logical progression seriously and are not about to abide by it for their own countries’ broader based industrial survival.
Rich you refer to “more tech and aerospace, less shoes and textiles” as key to our supposed economic health. But the tech (including aerospace) can be and is copied. Our aerospace is to a great extent military oriented and that is also used to protect freeloaders’ lifestyles.
By your lights why should we produce any shoes or textiles? We can “simply” go to India for them right? All manner of countries with their own specialty thinking it can hold the others hostage, no problem. Mutual assured destruction?
Given the dearth of manufacturing jobs and related spinoffs all those remaining workers can learn code right? We do not think that is the formula for a country’s survival.
If history has taught us anything it is that when you stop making stuff for yourself and start buying it from people far away, especially those who bear you no good will, you are in trouble.
The Bronze Age was a period much like today with very free and easy trade among the empires in and around the Mediterranean and it ended when the supply chains were broken by the Sea People and other invading barbarians forces; nobody could make what they needed for themselves and the whole ponzi scheme fell apart as everyone just had part of what they needed. Had they sought a modicum of self-sufficiency things could have turned out differently.
Much abuse is heaped on the Merchantilist era, but what was that but an over-reliance on international trade in the first place? Most European countries built giant colonial empires at enormous expense so they had access to resources they needed, but it hollowed out many local markets which would have found ways to cope otherwise. In the end the empire builders became slaves to the very empires they created and to the goods and services coming from Third World colonies. It is that same colonialism that has led to multiculturalism and the immigration crisis in the West that is swallowing up our civilization.
Why did America flourish during the Merchantilist times? Because the average person couldn’t compete with colonial workers in terms of wages and so it was either immigrate or perish. This didn’t change with the end of colonialism and the coming of capitalism (not to be confused with free market economics) and if anything it got worse. Look at the flood of peoples into the U.S. in the beginning of the 20th century, for instance. I would add G.K. Chesterton, as conservative a commentator as can be found, once said the difference between a capitalist and a socialist was a bigger paycheck. He was right, although today we call that not capitalism (which has been confused with free markets) but corporatism. Corporatism was the economic model followed by the Third Reich and Mussolini, the partnership between giant corporations and government. We also call it National Socialism.
All of this bad stuff – even Marxism, which was an overreaction to the rising tide of international exploitive trade – grew out of the dissatisfaction with the very order which Mr Lowery seems to be defending. Internationalism is always justified by the economic Anschluss of international trade run amok.
That’ not to say such trade is always bad, and certainly we need things we don’t possess and must trade for it and make things we want to sell to our partners, but there have to be common sense limits. We haven’t had that for a long time now. The illegal alien invasions of the entire Western world comes from our lust for cheaper labor than we ourselves can get and out of the desire to internationalize the whole world. It is the inevitable conclusion to the merchantilist vision, albeit instead of military empires we have created economic empires ultimately controlled by our enemies. It’s a fast path to our destruction as surely as was the overspecialization and free trade in the Bronze Age.