WEBVTT - Tariffs Gone Wrong? - Trump's Trade War Backfire

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:08.119
<v Speaker 1>Well, happy Monday, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the

0:00:08.200 --> 0:00:12.560
<v Speaker 1>Chuck Podcast. So coming up, I got Orn Casts. Orn

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Cass is the chief economist and founder of the American Compass.

0:00:17.360 --> 0:00:21.759
<v Speaker 1>What that is is, basically, I would argue the intellectual

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:25.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of the think tank that's trying to put an

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:30.000
<v Speaker 1>intellectual wrapping around trump Ism, however you want to call it,

0:00:30.040 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of this new populism that's on the right. And

0:00:35.880 --> 0:00:39.839
<v Speaker 1>what interested me on mister Cass is that he is

0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>basically he is basically the godfather of these tariffs. Now

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 1>he'll be the first one to tell you this isn't

0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the way he would have implemented. In fact, he did

0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>a New York Times out ed that, which is what

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 1>inspired me to put him on. As I've promised to you,

0:00:56.200 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 1>even if I'm skeptical of an idea, that doesn't mean

0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:00.720
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to have somebody on here making their

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 1>case and let's work shop it and you know, let's

0:01:03.840 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 1>have a back and forth. I think the conversation that

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:10.520
<v Speaker 1>I have with Orange Casts about the terriffs as they've

0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 1>been implemented versus perhaps how he would have implemented, we'll see,

0:01:16.160 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 1>looks a tough argument to make, which is you got

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:24.560
<v Speaker 1>to sort of take some medicine for a while before

0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:27.920
<v Speaker 1>the goal of what these tariffs are, which is to

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:30.480
<v Speaker 1>return some manufacturing back to the United States. It's going

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>to take a while, and the question is whether you

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:37.399
<v Speaker 1>can get enough patients from the public to put this

0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>off and whether the theory is right. You know, can

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:47.480
<v Speaker 1>you really motivate certain industries that have decided to manufacture

0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>outside the United States to come back? Is there enough

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:53.080
<v Speaker 1>incentive to do that? I think we're all about to

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>find out. Obviously, now a little point of order here.

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:01.040
<v Speaker 1>We did this interview before Donald Trump sort of flippantly

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:05.240
<v Speaker 1>said well maybe though maybe kids are for Christmas are

0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:08.840
<v Speaker 1>going to have to go with fewer toys and the

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:11.799
<v Speaker 1>dolls might cost a little bit much. I will tell

0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 1>you that is what I think is going to be

0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>the most fascinating part. And I don't want to prejudge

0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>the conversation I have with Orang cast for you, but

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:24.919
<v Speaker 1>if I were in his shoes, I'd be worried that

0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:28.720
<v Speaker 1>my theory of the case is may never get a

0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:33.799
<v Speaker 1>chance to be tested because of the poor implementation by

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>this administration, the haphazard way that they've been dealing with

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:40.560
<v Speaker 1>the tariffs, and the fact that there's I think the

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 1>signal has been sent. Everything's kind of negotiable. And if

0:02:44.880 --> 0:02:48.120
<v Speaker 1>that's the case, then how do you when does a

0:02:48.160 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 1>company decide Okay, I'm finally going to bring everything here.

0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:55.840
<v Speaker 1>But I do think politically this White House has done

0:02:55.840 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 1>a terrible job communicating the tariffs in general, a terrible

0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 1>sort of preparing the country, preparing business for this. When

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:08.120
<v Speaker 1>you listen to mister cass there there was another way

0:03:08.200 --> 0:03:11.359
<v Speaker 1>this could have been done, in an alternative universe, perhaps

0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:16.400
<v Speaker 1>in a more transparent and methodical way that you try

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 1>to implement something like this. There may have been poor,

0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:23.359
<v Speaker 1>more political support, but it actually brings me to where

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.280
<v Speaker 1>I want to focus most of my opener here, which is, look,

0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:30.440
<v Speaker 1>I've certainly given this Trump White House a hard time.

0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:32.400
<v Speaker 1>I think it's been a terrible one hundred days for

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>them politically, and a lot of Americans seem to agree

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:42.320
<v Speaker 1>that that's the case. I think that this White House

0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:45.760
<v Speaker 1>is another huge problem in blind spot, and that is

0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 1>they only know how to communicate with their base, and

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 1>they only seem interested in communicating with their base own

0:03:53.360 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the Libs. It still seems to be the mindset worrying

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:02.760
<v Speaker 1>about catering to the base and making them happy. I

0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:05.080
<v Speaker 1>could argue that this firing of Mike Waltz in some

0:04:05.120 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>ways is more of a response to the base than

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:10.520
<v Speaker 1>it is anything else. I guess he hasn't been fired,

0:04:10.560 --> 0:04:13.480
<v Speaker 1>I should correct myself. He just was simply moved to

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:17.440
<v Speaker 1>another position, which you got to. You know, whatever you

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:22.159
<v Speaker 1>think of Donald Trump is at least he's showing some

0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:24.839
<v Speaker 1>loyalty to Mike Waltz. Meaning here you got this guy

0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:27.760
<v Speaker 1>to quit his seat in Congress. The guy who replaced

0:04:27.839 --> 0:04:31.440
<v Speaker 1>him was literally sworn in three weeks ago, and now

0:04:31.480 --> 0:04:34.799
<v Speaker 1>he could have been completely out of a job. Ambassador

0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>to the United Nations is not such a bad consolation prize.

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:42.480
<v Speaker 1>It's no National security advisor. That's arguably the second most

0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:46.640
<v Speaker 1>powerful job in a West Wing after the chief of staff.

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:51.480
<v Speaker 1>It's certainly the second best office. But the lack of

0:04:52.040 --> 0:04:55.599
<v Speaker 1>their lack of interest in trying to communicate with skeptics,

0:04:55.640 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>not critics on the left. They don't want to communicate

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 1>with their pure critics. That's a White House's prerogative. But

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>if you're actually trying to make a political argument and

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.160
<v Speaker 1>win a political argument, you've actually got to try to

0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:13.039
<v Speaker 1>communicate to skeptics, you know, whether it's people like I

0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 1>think the folks that are listening to this podcast who

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.320
<v Speaker 1>may be skeptic of this tariff regime but you know,

0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:21.360
<v Speaker 1>really not happy with how it's been rolled out. It's

0:05:21.400 --> 0:05:25.800
<v Speaker 1>been sloppy. At least make your case in a more

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 1>logical way and try to talk to this crowd. And

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:30.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't think they've done a very good job of that.

0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:33.599
<v Speaker 1>And that's the question I have. Are they even interested

0:05:33.640 --> 0:05:35.479
<v Speaker 1>in it? You know, the Trump one point zero their

0:05:35.480 --> 0:05:38.720
<v Speaker 1>communication shop seemed to be interested, and Donald Trump did

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:42.560
<v Speaker 1>it in his first term, trying to communicate with everybody.

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 1>In fact, I think the great strength of Donald Trump's

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:49.400
<v Speaker 1>candidacy in twenty sixteen versus the other campaigns was that

0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:52.920
<v Speaker 1>he was sort of agnostic when it came to the media.

0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Sure he had opinions of who he thought was good

0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:58.560
<v Speaker 1>to him and not, but he was willing to talk

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.880
<v Speaker 1>to anybody. I guess we're seeing a little bit of

0:06:01.880 --> 0:06:04.080
<v Speaker 1>that in his decision to say yes to the Atlantic,

0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:06.520
<v Speaker 1>And that is a reminder if you can get directly

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 1>to the president, he'll give you time, even if he

0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:11.640
<v Speaker 1>doesn't even if he doesn't like your outlet, because he's

0:06:11.680 --> 0:06:15.600
<v Speaker 1>got that much confidence in himself, right he believes nobody

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:17.360
<v Speaker 1>can get the best of him. He believes he can

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:22.039
<v Speaker 1>survive in an interview, and as long as he's getting

0:06:22.080 --> 0:06:26.360
<v Speaker 1>a chance to talk, he's okay with it. I wonder

0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:29.240
<v Speaker 1>the question I have is a is he surrounded by

0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:31.960
<v Speaker 1>a press staff that wants him to do that? Or

0:06:32.040 --> 0:06:34.040
<v Speaker 1>is he surrounded by a press staff that is going

0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:38.360
<v Speaker 1>to try to prevent him or block him from dealing

0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 1>with journalists that are neither anti Trumpers or pro Trumpers,

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:49.760
<v Speaker 1>but are essentially professional skeptics. And I've always said that's

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:53.680
<v Speaker 1>that's what I believe believe my job has been when

0:06:53.680 --> 0:06:57.720
<v Speaker 1>it comes to covering policy, which is okay, show your work,

0:06:58.279 --> 0:07:01.760
<v Speaker 1>be a skeptic about it, intrigued about it, cover it,

0:07:01.839 --> 0:07:04.159
<v Speaker 1>kick the tires, do all the do all those things.

0:07:04.760 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>But as a journalist, if you behave as a professional skeptic,

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:09.920
<v Speaker 1>then you're more likely to get more information and I

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:15.760
<v Speaker 1>think deliver a better report for the average American on this.

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:18.400
<v Speaker 1>But I do think the big you know, he's they've

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:23.000
<v Speaker 1>got to figure out how to how to communicate beyond

0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:26.400
<v Speaker 1>their base, because right now it's not working for them politically.

0:07:26.960 --> 0:07:29.560
<v Speaker 1>It may make them feel good, right, and if that's

0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:31.920
<v Speaker 1>all the world that they live in, that's nice, But

0:07:31.960 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>then they're going to get a shock to the system,

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>as they already have been when they start holding elections. Uh.

0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 1>The Waltz. The way the President handled the Waltz situation

0:07:43.480 --> 0:07:45.560
<v Speaker 1>is interesting, and I think the question is going to

0:07:45.560 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 1>be what should what should we take away from this? Right,

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:51.680
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't a total like get out of here mindset,

0:07:52.000 --> 0:07:54.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, poor old Ryan's previous was fired by tweet

0:07:55.400 --> 0:08:02.280
<v Speaker 1>and was essentially it appeared essentially abandon after Air Force

0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:05.760
<v Speaker 1>One landed at andrews Now. I don't think that's the

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:07.400
<v Speaker 1>way he felt at the end of the day, but

0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:10.040
<v Speaker 1>it certainly looked that way, and that certainly seemed to

0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 1>be a look that the president back then didn't seem

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:18.480
<v Speaker 1>to mind the fact that he gave Waltz a sort

0:08:18.520 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 1>of consolation prize. I think shows that he would like

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:26.200
<v Speaker 1>to have some loyalty. And it's probably smarter right if

0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 1>you don't do that. Who knows who knows who Waltz

0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 1>may talk to when you fire. Ask Pete Hegseth what

0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:36.440
<v Speaker 1>it's like when you fire former staffers, and what happens

0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:41.200
<v Speaker 1>when they start talking to the press. So I am

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 1>intrigued by the decision that they have and they had

0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>this extra they had this extra job that they hadn't

0:08:46.520 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 1>filled because of the narrow House majority and the decision

0:08:50.800 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 1>to pull back the nomination, which, of course you an

0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:55.679
<v Speaker 1>ambassador was originally supposed to go to at least Dephonic.

0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.959
<v Speaker 1>But what's interesting, and as my one of my producers,

0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:02.040
<v Speaker 1>Laurene Gardner put it to me, he says, I hope

0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 1>you can keep track of all of Marco Rubio's titles.

0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Right now, he is the Senate confirmed Secretary of State,

0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 1>but he's also the acting administrator of the US AID.

0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:18.719
<v Speaker 1>He's also the acting Archivist, and now he's also the

0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:21.560
<v Speaker 1>National Security Advisor. Now a lot of people are making

0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Kissinger comparisons, because the last person to hold both Secretary

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:28.680
<v Speaker 1>of State and National Security Advisor was Henry Kissinger to

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:33.800
<v Speaker 1>Richard Nixon. And that'll be an interesting question whether Rubio

0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:36.880
<v Speaker 1>keeps this for a while, or whether the President decides

0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:42.760
<v Speaker 1>to reward witkof his sort of personal negotiator from around

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:45.840
<v Speaker 1>the world, his special envoy for everything. Right, it wasn't

0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:47.640
<v Speaker 1>just one thing he sent him to putin. He sent

0:09:47.720 --> 0:09:50.480
<v Speaker 1>him to Iran, he sent him to Israel. So I

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:54.080
<v Speaker 1>think right now Witkoff is sort of his personal envoy.

0:09:55.520 --> 0:09:57.960
<v Speaker 1>I can tell you from my understanding is that that

0:09:58.000 --> 0:10:00.800
<v Speaker 1>Marco Rubio really has earned a lot of trust of

0:10:00.880 --> 0:10:03.679
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump. You know, when you start to look at why,

0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:07.480
<v Speaker 1>why was Walt's sort of pushed out? Was he pushed

0:10:07.520 --> 0:10:11.439
<v Speaker 1>out because of the Jeffrey Goldberg signal incident? Or was

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:14.800
<v Speaker 1>he pushed out because Magan never trusted him anyway? Because

0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:18.520
<v Speaker 1>he was a well known sort of conventional or traditional

0:10:18.640 --> 0:10:22.360
<v Speaker 1>national security Republican. What do I mean by that? Somebody

0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 1>pre Trump? Right? What there where the Republican establishment was

0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:28.400
<v Speaker 1>pre Trump? Now, Marco Rubio is somebody that I think

0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:30.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people, including myself, would have put him

0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:34.120
<v Speaker 1>in that track. Even the way he uh, the way

0:10:34.160 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 1>he ran the Intel Committee with Mark Warner when they

0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:38.960
<v Speaker 1>were one would be chair, when vice chair, depending on

0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:43.000
<v Speaker 1>which party was in charge, seemed to also indicate that

0:10:43.040 --> 0:10:46.240
<v Speaker 1>he really was sort of more on the conventional side

0:10:46.320 --> 0:10:50.120
<v Speaker 1>of of of where of American foreign policy, which which

0:10:50.120 --> 0:10:53.400
<v Speaker 1>I'd say center left and center right, you know, both

0:10:53.520 --> 0:10:59.400
<v Speaker 1>share share that philosophy. But as as people have told

0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:03.960
<v Speaker 1>me who are close to this situation, that the more

0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:07.880
<v Speaker 1>time that Trump has spent with Rubio and Rubio had

0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.600
<v Speaker 1>proximity going for him. Right. Obviously, we know this was

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:14.240
<v Speaker 1>a nasty primary fight in twenty sixteen and there was

0:11:14.280 --> 0:11:17.840
<v Speaker 1>no love loss between Marco Rubio, Little Marco and Donald

0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:20.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump and the hands comment and all that business. But

0:11:21.080 --> 0:11:26.520
<v Speaker 1>that over the four years Rubio became you know, worked

0:11:26.559 --> 0:11:30.080
<v Speaker 1>really hard to regain Trump's trust. Now, for some of

0:11:30.080 --> 0:11:33.080
<v Speaker 1>you that might be a huge turnoff. Some of you

0:11:33.160 --> 0:11:36.120
<v Speaker 1>might think he's just being a hypocrite. And you know what,

0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:40.120
<v Speaker 1>none of us know the motive for sure. But he

0:11:40.200 --> 0:11:43.720
<v Speaker 1>became Secretary of State not because Donald Trump thought he

0:11:43.880 --> 0:11:47.839
<v Speaker 1>owed the establishment wing of the party somebody to give

0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:50.240
<v Speaker 1>a place to. He gave it to him because over

0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>time he started leaning on Rubio when it certainly came

0:11:53.559 --> 0:11:56.320
<v Speaker 1>to do with anything having to do with form policy

0:11:56.360 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 1>in Latin America. I mean, Donald Trump doesn't make any

0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:03.360
<v Speaker 1>decision on Venezuela without running it by Rubio, and it

0:12:03.440 --> 0:12:05.320
<v Speaker 1>was the case towards the end of his first term.

0:12:05.840 --> 0:12:11.520
<v Speaker 1>So I won't be surprised if this relationship of national

0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:14.839
<v Speaker 1>security Advisor and Secretary State is something that lasts a

0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.680
<v Speaker 1>good six to nine months, which in a Trump white

0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:20.199
<v Speaker 1>House would be a long time. Remember he went through

0:12:20.200 --> 0:12:22.920
<v Speaker 1>four national Security advisors in his first term. He went

0:12:22.920 --> 0:12:25.120
<v Speaker 1>through four chiefs of staff in his first term. So

0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:27.920
<v Speaker 1>you're looking at about you know, you know, every nine

0:12:27.920 --> 0:12:30.240
<v Speaker 1>to twelve months some sort of shift or change here.

0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.080
<v Speaker 1>What's interesting about all the titles that Marco Rubio has

0:12:35.640 --> 0:12:39.400
<v Speaker 1>is that it also gives Donald Trump flexibility. So we

0:12:39.520 --> 0:12:42.040
<v Speaker 1>now see what he was willing to do with Waltz. Well,

0:12:42.120 --> 0:12:43.839
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to totally kick him out of the

0:12:43.880 --> 0:12:47.559
<v Speaker 1>administration because you never know if you create an enemy. Well,

0:12:47.600 --> 0:12:49.760
<v Speaker 1>let's say he finally comes to the conclusion that hag

0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:53.000
<v Speaker 1>Seth just can't manage the Pentagon. Well, now there's three

0:12:53.320 --> 0:12:57.559
<v Speaker 1>titles he essentially can take away. Hag Seth is Senate confirmed,

0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:00.000
<v Speaker 1>and so if you want to make him the National

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Security Advisor, he could. I don't know if that's what.

0:13:03.240 --> 0:13:06.440
<v Speaker 1>If Trump wants hake Seth around that much, But maybe

0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:11.560
<v Speaker 1>he gives hagg Seth the Administrator of Aid, maybe he

0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:15.960
<v Speaker 1>hands him the archivist role, maybe he gives them an ambassadorship.

0:13:16.400 --> 0:13:18.679
<v Speaker 1>But I wonder if this is going to be the

0:13:18.720 --> 0:13:22.160
<v Speaker 1>new pattern of Trump where he finds a place when

0:13:22.160 --> 0:13:25.600
<v Speaker 1>he decides someone isn't working in a position, rather than

0:13:25.720 --> 0:13:29.440
<v Speaker 1>create an eventual source against his administration, which they're very

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:33.839
<v Speaker 1>paranoid about leaks that instead, you find a place within

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the administration, you keep this person in the tent. Just

0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:39.800
<v Speaker 1>something I'm going to be watching for. And you know what,

0:13:39.960 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 1>one thing we do know is Donald Trump doesn't like

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:48.480
<v Speaker 1>to feed the media beast. So even if he makes

0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:50.640
<v Speaker 1>a decision to get rid of somebody, he'll delay it

0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:54.320
<v Speaker 1>a little bit, just in time, so it looks like

0:13:54.360 --> 0:13:56.679
<v Speaker 1>it's his decision. He doesn't want to look like the

0:13:57.000 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 1>press pushed him on this. But the the uncomfortable aspect

0:14:01.880 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>of this Waltz decision is that it does seem to

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:07.360
<v Speaker 1>be a victory for Laura Lumer, the person who came

0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:12.439
<v Speaker 1>in and seems to have encouraged President Trump to do purging.

0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.240
<v Speaker 1>And this is a question of whether who's allowing her

0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:17.640
<v Speaker 1>to have his ear. Now maybe if he wants her

0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:19.720
<v Speaker 1>to have his ear, there's nothing Susie Wilds can do

0:14:19.760 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 1>about it, or there's maybe Mike Waltz did try to

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:24.880
<v Speaker 1>stop her, and that was part of the problem. But

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:28.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's my understanding that Lumer essentially has been

0:14:28.280 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 1>doing vetting of any national security staffer and if they

0:14:31.160 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 1>have any connection to people like Pompeo or Cotton or

0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:38.200
<v Speaker 1>anybody she has deemed to be anti MAGA in the

0:14:38.240 --> 0:14:43.040
<v Speaker 1>foreign policy world. It has gotten those staffers ostracized. And

0:14:43.080 --> 0:14:45.720
<v Speaker 1>I'll tell you this, while he may have kept Waltz

0:14:46.120 --> 0:14:50.520
<v Speaker 1>at least in the circle by giving him the UN ambassadorship,

0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:54.880
<v Speaker 1>some of these other staffers are not going to like

0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:58.080
<v Speaker 1>how they were treated and on this. So that's just

0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:00.720
<v Speaker 1>something to watch for. There the other things I want

0:15:00.720 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 1>to clean up from the weekend, including the last time

0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:05.600
<v Speaker 1>I spoke to you and I talked about the first

0:15:05.680 --> 0:15:08.080
<v Speaker 1>hundred days of the Democrats, I left out one other.

0:15:08.640 --> 0:15:11.640
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think it's no doubt AOC probably of

0:15:11.680 --> 0:15:14.720
<v Speaker 1>all the Democrats who are worrying about it, for their

0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:16.800
<v Speaker 1>own first hundred days, she probably had the best first

0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:20.720
<v Speaker 1>hundred days. But there's another Democrat that arguably had as

0:15:20.760 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 1>good of a first hundred days, and maybe even a

0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>better one, and that's Abigail Spanberger. And some of you

0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:28.400
<v Speaker 1>may say who is she. She is a former member

0:15:28.440 --> 0:15:34.120
<v Speaker 1>of Congress who is the essentially the Democratic nominee for

0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:36.400
<v Speaker 1>governor in Virginia, an election that's going to be held

0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:40.000
<v Speaker 1>this cycle. So why do I say she's a huge winner. Well,

0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Number one, the more unpopular first, you know, the more

0:15:44.240 --> 0:15:47.320
<v Speaker 1>unpopular White houses in their first year after a presidential election,

0:15:47.840 --> 0:15:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the better it is for the opposition party in the

0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:53.720
<v Speaker 1>state of Virginia. We have seen a remarkable pattern something

0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:56.920
<v Speaker 1>in like eight of the last nine Virginia gubernatorial elections

0:15:56.960 --> 0:15:59.840
<v Speaker 1>where the party in the White House has lost the

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:04.120
<v Speaker 1>ubernatorial race in Virginia. The most recent example, Biden wins

0:16:04.120 --> 0:16:08.440
<v Speaker 1>the presidency in twenty Republican Glenn Younkin wins the Virginia

0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:14.520
<v Speaker 1>gubernatorial governorship in twenty one, Donald Trump wins the presidency

0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:18.560
<v Speaker 1>in sixteen, Democrat Ralph Northam wins the governorship in seventeen.

0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:25.040
<v Speaker 1>So now throw in Doje and Elon Musk, and I

0:16:25.080 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 1>will tell you Spanburger, the question is and whether she's

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:33.040
<v Speaker 1>going to win this race. Barring some unforeseen event, the

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:35.200
<v Speaker 1>question is going to be whether she can win it

0:16:35.240 --> 0:16:40.480
<v Speaker 1>by such a large margin that she changes she dramatically

0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 1>changes the makeup of the state legislature. Not a lot

0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:46.600
<v Speaker 1>of swing districts in neither the Assembly or the state Senate.

0:16:47.160 --> 0:16:49.320
<v Speaker 1>But she could have a large margin of victory because

0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:50.920
<v Speaker 1>she's got a secret weapon in her hands, and that's

0:16:50.960 --> 0:16:56.360
<v Speaker 1>government workers. When you follow Virginia politics, these off your elections.

0:16:56.560 --> 0:16:59.760
<v Speaker 1>Government workers are sometimes the most difficult to engage in

0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:02.840
<v Speaker 1>state elections. They're federal government workers, which means they're usually

0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:06.760
<v Speaker 1>very focused on federal government politics, but don't always see

0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:10.120
<v Speaker 1>themselves as Virginians. It's been one of the struggles Democrats

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:12.520
<v Speaker 1>have had, used to have a lot, and sort of

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:15.280
<v Speaker 1>they improve that over the years. I can tell you

0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:19.880
<v Speaker 1>now federal government workers that live in Northern Virginia are angry,

0:17:20.040 --> 0:17:22.320
<v Speaker 1>that are on fire. Some of them are no longer

0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:25.200
<v Speaker 1>government workers, and that wasn't a choice. Some of them

0:17:25.200 --> 0:17:28.760
<v Speaker 1>took retirement on purpose to avoid the dose thing. But

0:17:28.880 --> 0:17:31.600
<v Speaker 1>I can tell you they're very engaged. You go around

0:17:31.600 --> 0:17:34.880
<v Speaker 1>northern Virginia, you see a lot of signs of support

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:39.600
<v Speaker 1>our government workers, support your government workers. I think that

0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:43.080
<v Speaker 1>makes what was already a difficult political environment for the

0:17:43.119 --> 0:17:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Republican win some seers the lieutenant governor. It puts why

0:17:49.960 --> 0:17:53.800
<v Speaker 1>I would say of all Democrats, probably nobody had a

0:17:53.800 --> 0:17:56.480
<v Speaker 1>better first hundred days when you look about their near

0:17:56.560 --> 0:18:02.919
<v Speaker 1>term goal than Abigail Spamburger. One other note that I

0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:06.880
<v Speaker 1>want to touch on is Wes Moore in his announcement

0:18:07.040 --> 0:18:08.919
<v Speaker 1>that he said he's not going to be a candidate

0:18:08.920 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 1>for president in twenty twenty eight, and his decision to

0:18:11.280 --> 0:18:15.480
<v Speaker 1>say it so early. Well, the only problem poor Wes

0:18:15.520 --> 0:18:20.000
<v Speaker 1>Moore has. It's not his fault. But I'm old enough

0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:22.760
<v Speaker 1>to remember when Barack Obama in twenty oh five, and

0:18:23.200 --> 0:18:24.880
<v Speaker 1>I think he went on Meet the President early twenty

0:18:24.920 --> 0:18:26.240
<v Speaker 1>oh six and said he was not going to be

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:28.639
<v Speaker 1>a candidate for president, and then by the end of

0:18:28.680 --> 0:18:32.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty oh six came back on Meet the Press to say, well,

0:18:32.560 --> 0:18:35.280
<v Speaker 1>I may have changed my mind. So the point is

0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:39.359
<v Speaker 1>it's fascinating that he made the decision to announce it.

0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:42.919
<v Speaker 1>Perhaps that's a way of keeping donors from calling him

0:18:42.960 --> 0:18:46.600
<v Speaker 1>all the time. Perhaps he's worried that if people think

0:18:46.640 --> 0:18:49.879
<v Speaker 1>he's looking too far ahead to the presidency that actually

0:18:49.960 --> 0:18:53.280
<v Speaker 1>a re election campaign in twenty six might become problematic.

0:18:54.840 --> 0:18:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Whatever the reason, or perhaps we should just take about

0:18:57.240 --> 0:18:59.399
<v Speaker 1>his word. Maybe he thinks his family's too young to

0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:03.119
<v Speaker 1>deal with as aential campaign in twenty eight he's certainly not.

0:19:03.600 --> 0:19:06.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, he is somebody that has a long runway.

0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:09.000
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's not as if the moment is gone

0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:12.520
<v Speaker 1>for him in twenty twenty eight, but it's an if

0:19:12.560 --> 0:19:14.919
<v Speaker 1>there is no Wes Moore candidacy in twenty twenty eight.

0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:17.280
<v Speaker 1>I happen to believe if he runs, he's somebody that

0:19:17.280 --> 0:19:19.359
<v Speaker 1>would say is going to be one of the be

0:19:19.600 --> 0:19:22.439
<v Speaker 1>in the top tier. But if he doesn't run, that's

0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:25.120
<v Speaker 1>short early on. It's a big help to a guy

0:19:25.160 --> 0:19:28.040
<v Speaker 1>like Pete Bootages, right, he's the other veteran in the race,

0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:32.320
<v Speaker 1>having served. Wes Moore having served, that was I think

0:19:32.320 --> 0:19:35.240
<v Speaker 1>a big part of his his appeal to many people.

0:19:36.520 --> 0:19:38.520
<v Speaker 1>That could be a little bit of a help to

0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:40.600
<v Speaker 1>a guy like Pete Footage. And frankly anybody in the

0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:43.639
<v Speaker 1>what I would say is in the establishment lane of

0:19:43.680 --> 0:19:47.480
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic presidential race, whether it's Corey Booker, Pete Boutaggche,

0:19:47.480 --> 0:19:50.359
<v Speaker 1>Gretchen Whitmer, but those that are sort of viting buying

0:19:50.400 --> 0:19:55.920
<v Speaker 1>for the mainstream liberal support, no wesmore that that's that's

0:19:55.920 --> 0:19:57.880
<v Speaker 1>a whole bunch of donors that are up for grabs.

0:19:57.920 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 1>That's a whole bunch of operatives that are up for grabs,

0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:03.840
<v Speaker 1>So an interesting decision. But I will promise you, Governor Moore,

0:20:04.280 --> 0:20:06.840
<v Speaker 1>no one's really gonna believe you've taken yourself out of

0:20:06.840 --> 0:20:13.760
<v Speaker 1>twenty eight until you say it again after your twenty

0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:18.520
<v Speaker 1>sixth race, assuming you're successful in your reelection. All right,

0:20:18.920 --> 0:20:21.640
<v Speaker 1>just wanted to get a couple of those things off

0:20:22.960 --> 0:20:26.679
<v Speaker 1>my little my notepad of stuff that I keep. Hey,

0:20:26.720 --> 0:20:28.439
<v Speaker 1>I got to mention this. Hey, I got to mention that.

0:20:30.200 --> 0:20:32.919
<v Speaker 1>My pause for a break when we come back my

0:20:33.000 --> 0:20:42.320
<v Speaker 1>conversation with orn Casts, all right, and joining me now

0:20:42.480 --> 0:20:46.040
<v Speaker 1>is orn Cast. He is the chief economist, and I

0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:49.240
<v Speaker 1>guess founder of American Compass is their chief economist. I

0:20:49.280 --> 0:20:55.240
<v Speaker 1>hope I have that correctly, Oran and former Manhattan Institute fellow?

0:20:55.320 --> 0:20:56.560
<v Speaker 1>Is that also correct?

0:20:56.800 --> 0:20:57.440
<v Speaker 2>Also true?

0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:02.040
<v Speaker 1>Which has been a long time of economic could How

0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:04.520
<v Speaker 1>would you describe the Manhattan Institute. It's always been to

0:21:04.560 --> 0:21:07.560
<v Speaker 1>me where a lot of what I would call center

0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:11.679
<v Speaker 1>right conservatives end up, you know, sort of more in

0:21:11.720 --> 0:21:14.360
<v Speaker 1>line with AI for those that are follow that world

0:21:14.400 --> 0:21:16.240
<v Speaker 1>in DC. Is that is that a fair comparison?

0:21:16.800 --> 0:21:19.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? I think that's right. They're they're outside the Beltway,

0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:21.679
<v Speaker 2>so they're a little more eclectic to do a lot

0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:24.359
<v Speaker 2>of urban policy and so forth, but definitely in that

0:21:24.440 --> 0:21:25.879
<v Speaker 2>conservative think tank world.

0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:32.040
<v Speaker 1>And uh it, how would I was going to describe

0:21:32.040 --> 0:21:34.280
<v Speaker 1>you as sort of the one of the authors or

0:21:34.320 --> 0:21:38.439
<v Speaker 1>godfathers of this tariff policy, or at least the initial

0:21:38.720 --> 0:21:43.080
<v Speaker 1>policy that President Trump rolled out, but instead of me

0:21:43.160 --> 0:21:45.199
<v Speaker 1>doing it, describe it in your words. What is you?

0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:47.520
<v Speaker 1>What was your role in this during the campaign, and

0:21:48.320 --> 0:21:50.560
<v Speaker 1>how much ownership do you take of this policy?

0:21:51.640 --> 0:21:54.119
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's an issue that American Compass has been working

0:21:54.160 --> 0:21:58.080
<v Speaker 2>on since since we started in twenty twenty. You know,

0:21:58.200 --> 0:22:03.160
<v Speaker 2>generally speaking, we sort of see the excesses of globalization

0:22:03.320 --> 0:22:06.880
<v Speaker 2>as one of the major problems with the US economy,

0:22:07.000 --> 0:22:10.480
<v Speaker 2>something that is harmed a lot of workers in communities,

0:22:10.600 --> 0:22:14.920
<v Speaker 2>something that both political parties that economists ignored for much

0:22:14.920 --> 0:22:18.080
<v Speaker 2>too long. And so, you know, I think it's very

0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:21.880
<v Speaker 2>important just to have a clear diagnosis of why this

0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:24.119
<v Speaker 2>is a problem. Right, everybody said free trade was going

0:22:24.160 --> 0:22:26.919
<v Speaker 2>to be great and and and why might that not

0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:29.440
<v Speaker 2>be the case? And then to have a clear idea

0:22:29.520 --> 0:22:31.960
<v Speaker 2>of Okay, well, then what would you actually do about it?

0:22:32.040 --> 0:22:34.920
<v Speaker 2>Because it's you know, some people would say you sort

0:22:34.920 --> 0:22:37.720
<v Speaker 2>of have a toothpaste out of the tube situation where

0:22:38.600 --> 0:22:42.600
<v Speaker 2>you can't just go back on what we may have decided,

0:22:42.640 --> 0:22:44.719
<v Speaker 2>even if it was it was a bad decision. And

0:22:44.800 --> 0:22:49.160
<v Speaker 2>so you know, we have developed sort of a broad

0:22:49.320 --> 0:22:53.119
<v Speaker 2>range of policies and a pretty comprehensive agenda, I think

0:22:53.240 --> 0:22:56.919
<v Speaker 2>for what we call reindustrialization, which is the idea that

0:22:56.920 --> 0:23:00.840
<v Speaker 2>we have to rebuild American industry for the sake of

0:23:00.880 --> 0:23:03.520
<v Speaker 2>communities and good jobs, but also for the sake of

0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:07.439
<v Speaker 2>economic growth, also for the sake of national security, and

0:23:07.960 --> 0:23:09.480
<v Speaker 2>tariffs are an important.

0:23:09.160 --> 0:23:09.679
<v Speaker 1>Piece of that.

0:23:10.600 --> 0:23:15.000
<v Speaker 2>So the idea of a global tariff is one, the

0:23:15.040 --> 0:23:18.760
<v Speaker 2>idea of confronting China in particular and decoupling from China

0:23:18.840 --> 0:23:21.679
<v Speaker 2>to another, and then there's a lot of other stuff.

0:23:21.720 --> 0:23:25.560
<v Speaker 2>So conceptually, I would say we are very much on

0:23:25.720 --> 0:23:28.000
<v Speaker 2>the same page and been very encouraged by the direction

0:23:28.080 --> 0:23:32.120
<v Speaker 2>the Trump administration has gone. In the specifics, I think,

0:23:32.119 --> 0:23:35.360
<v Speaker 2>as we've seen there have been a lot of costs

0:23:35.359 --> 0:23:37.919
<v Speaker 2>that I think are are too high and higher than

0:23:37.960 --> 0:23:39.879
<v Speaker 2>they need to be, and that's where we would depart

0:23:39.960 --> 0:23:41.240
<v Speaker 2>on the specifics.

0:23:41.520 --> 0:23:43.720
<v Speaker 1>Look, the motivation for me to book you was your

0:23:43.760 --> 0:23:48.440
<v Speaker 1>New York Times up ed that you know, look, I'm

0:23:48.480 --> 0:23:51.480
<v Speaker 1>a skeptic that we can reindustrialize the way you say

0:23:51.480 --> 0:23:54.880
<v Speaker 1>it is, but the way you outlined how you would

0:23:54.880 --> 0:23:58.320
<v Speaker 1>have implemented this versus how it was done, you had

0:23:58.320 --> 0:24:02.480
<v Speaker 1>a very sensible thing you you were trying you frankly,

0:24:02.520 --> 0:24:04.360
<v Speaker 1>were trying to take into account there would be some

0:24:04.400 --> 0:24:07.919
<v Speaker 1>shock to the supply chain, there'd be shocked to business planning,

0:24:07.920 --> 0:24:11.320
<v Speaker 1>and in some ways you wanted to telegraph everything that

0:24:11.400 --> 0:24:16.119
<v Speaker 1>was going to happen. But essentially by six months is

0:24:16.240 --> 0:24:18.119
<v Speaker 1>the impression I got from your op ed that you

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:20.480
<v Speaker 1>were you know that none of these the s that

0:24:20.520 --> 0:24:22.679
<v Speaker 1>you would you would lay it out what it was

0:24:22.720 --> 0:24:24.840
<v Speaker 1>going to look like, but you would give at least

0:24:24.880 --> 0:24:27.879
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and eighty days of breathing room, both for

0:24:28.440 --> 0:24:32.479
<v Speaker 1>Corporate America to plan for this, but also to give

0:24:32.560 --> 0:24:36.280
<v Speaker 1>room for some trade deals before the implementation. That isn't

0:24:36.320 --> 0:24:36.880
<v Speaker 1>how it's been.

0:24:36.800 --> 0:24:40.840
<v Speaker 2>Implemented, That's right. I think the you know, the phase

0:24:40.920 --> 0:24:44.399
<v Speaker 2>in concept is a really important one because it goes

0:24:44.480 --> 0:24:47.160
<v Speaker 2>to the heart of what do we actually expect tariffs

0:24:47.200 --> 0:24:49.600
<v Speaker 2>to do? And at the end of the day, what

0:24:50.080 --> 0:24:52.600
<v Speaker 2>matters for a tariff is not what is the value

0:24:52.640 --> 0:24:55.600
<v Speaker 2>on day one, because no one can change how they

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:57.800
<v Speaker 2>do business on day one. On day one, it's just

0:24:57.840 --> 0:25:00.919
<v Speaker 2>going to be something you pay. Matters is what is

0:25:01.040 --> 0:25:03.720
<v Speaker 2>the tark going to be in years three through ten,

0:25:04.359 --> 0:25:07.720
<v Speaker 2>Because the investment decisions that people make today are based

0:25:07.760 --> 0:25:11.159
<v Speaker 2>on what they expect policy to look like over that timeframe.

0:25:11.800 --> 0:25:13.960
<v Speaker 2>And so my view is that if you want to

0:25:14.040 --> 0:25:17.800
<v Speaker 2>make this sort of long term structural shift in the economy,

0:25:18.080 --> 0:25:20.560
<v Speaker 2>you want to keep the upfront costs as low as possible.

0:25:20.680 --> 0:25:22.480
<v Speaker 2>You want to say, look, we are going to give

0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:25.240
<v Speaker 2>a time, give time for businesses to adjust, for other

0:25:25.280 --> 0:25:28.160
<v Speaker 2>countries to adjust, but we also want to be as

0:25:28.200 --> 0:25:31.359
<v Speaker 2>clear and credible as possible. This is happening that if

0:25:31.400 --> 0:25:34.640
<v Speaker 2>you don't start adjusting as quickly as you can, you

0:25:34.680 --> 0:25:37.480
<v Speaker 2>are going to get hit. And so that's where I think,

0:25:37.560 --> 0:25:39.639
<v Speaker 2>you know, some of what the administration has done in

0:25:40.160 --> 0:25:43.720
<v Speaker 2>being quite sort of abrupt, and I think shaking people

0:25:43.720 --> 0:25:46.560
<v Speaker 2>out of their stupor in a sense has been helpful.

0:25:47.119 --> 0:25:49.199
<v Speaker 2>But when you think about, you know, across all of

0:25:49.200 --> 0:25:52.000
<v Speaker 2>those trade partners, and we think about with China, you

0:25:52.040 --> 0:25:54.280
<v Speaker 2>know what is going to be the key to the success.

0:25:54.720 --> 0:25:57.040
<v Speaker 2>The key is that we have a credible and sustainable

0:25:57.080 --> 0:26:01.040
<v Speaker 2>policy and that people really believe three years from now

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:04.520
<v Speaker 2>there are going to be high tariffs, and and that's

0:26:04.560 --> 0:26:06.400
<v Speaker 2>where I think, you know, I think the Trim administration

0:26:06.440 --> 0:26:10.600
<v Speaker 2>has already made some good course corrections, but especially in China,

0:26:10.640 --> 0:26:13.520
<v Speaker 2>where where there's probably still more work to be done.

0:26:14.400 --> 0:26:17.760
<v Speaker 1>Tell me how you got here intellectually? I mean, it's

0:26:17.840 --> 0:26:19.640
<v Speaker 1>just you know, to think that you were met Romney's

0:26:19.640 --> 0:26:21.840
<v Speaker 1>domestic policy advisor. This is a guy, and I think

0:26:21.880 --> 0:26:26.240
<v Speaker 1>he's a you know, a free marketeer and every definition

0:26:26.320 --> 0:26:29.840
<v Speaker 1>that that is probably even more libertarian maybe than most

0:26:31.200 --> 0:26:36.080
<v Speaker 1>elected Republicans today, at least on this issue. So how

0:26:36.119 --> 0:26:38.800
<v Speaker 1>did you get how did you get to where you've

0:26:38.840 --> 0:26:39.920
<v Speaker 1>gotten intellectually?

0:26:40.920 --> 0:26:43.159
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's interesting, that's I would say, that's just wrong

0:26:43.240 --> 0:26:47.399
<v Speaker 2>about about Romney on a lot of issues. You know,

0:26:47.440 --> 0:26:49.920
<v Speaker 2>that's actually right. I think he was a very sort

0:26:49.920 --> 0:26:55.600
<v Speaker 2>of conventional pre Trump conservative on the trade issue. He wasn't.

0:26:55.640 --> 0:26:58.159
<v Speaker 2>And that was really my entry point into it. I

0:26:58.400 --> 0:27:00.879
<v Speaker 2>still remember the meeting when we we brought him the

0:27:00.920 --> 0:27:03.320
<v Speaker 2>sort of standard briefing on you know, okay, here's what

0:27:03.359 --> 0:27:06.720
<v Speaker 2>a Republican says about trade, and he kind of looked

0:27:06.720 --> 0:27:08.520
<v Speaker 2>through it and said, yeah, that that's fine, But what

0:27:08.600 --> 0:27:11.879
<v Speaker 2>are we going to do about China, And at that

0:27:11.960 --> 0:27:14.840
<v Speaker 2>time that was sort of a very strange question to ask.

0:27:15.400 --> 0:27:19.359
<v Speaker 2>I remember the senior economic advisors said, you don't do

0:27:19.400 --> 0:27:23.439
<v Speaker 2>anything about China. What what's the problem? We have? Free trade?

0:27:24.200 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 2>And you know, I think Romney brought a much more

0:27:26.320 --> 0:27:29.920
<v Speaker 2>sort of pragmatic business view to the issue, which which

0:27:29.920 --> 0:27:32.480
<v Speaker 2>in many cases argues for a very free market approach,

0:27:33.000 --> 0:27:35.639
<v Speaker 2>but when it comes to China, really doesn't that that

0:27:35.720 --> 0:27:38.280
<v Speaker 2>the kind of economic relationship we had with China was

0:27:38.320 --> 0:27:42.040
<v Speaker 2>clearly just not a functional one if what you cared

0:27:42.040 --> 0:27:45.800
<v Speaker 2>about was business success in the United States. And so

0:27:45.840 --> 0:27:48.960
<v Speaker 2>that that kind of got me sent off on a

0:27:49.160 --> 0:27:52.600
<v Speaker 2>journey to figure out, Okay, what what can we say

0:27:52.600 --> 0:27:54.760
<v Speaker 2>about this? How would we approach it? And what I

0:27:54.760 --> 0:27:56.199
<v Speaker 2>found was that in the right of center there was

0:27:56.240 --> 0:27:59.760
<v Speaker 2>just nothing that what had you know, begun back in

0:28:00.000 --> 0:28:03.440
<v Speaker 2>Meagan's day as as some kind of very thoughtful economic

0:28:03.560 --> 0:28:07.240
<v Speaker 2>reforms had just sort of ossified into this kind of

0:28:07.280 --> 0:28:10.440
<v Speaker 2>market fundamentalism that just well, free trade is always good

0:28:10.520 --> 0:28:12.360
<v Speaker 2>and we don't have to think about it any more

0:28:12.400 --> 0:28:14.800
<v Speaker 2>than that. It's interesting one of the one of the

0:28:14.800 --> 0:28:15.440
<v Speaker 2>few guys the.

0:28:15.400 --> 0:28:19.440
<v Speaker 1>Size of our economy though over the last basically since Reagan. Right,

0:28:19.680 --> 0:28:22.000
<v Speaker 1>and you go and and in many ways, the Democratic

0:28:22.359 --> 0:28:23.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, this is one of those cases I was,

0:28:23.760 --> 0:28:26.879
<v Speaker 1>you know, you know, somebody's won an argument when somebody

0:28:26.880 --> 0:28:29.359
<v Speaker 1>from the other political party starts making the same argument.

0:28:29.560 --> 0:28:32.320
<v Speaker 1>Right and so right, the Democrats have essentially, at least

0:28:32.400 --> 0:28:35.080
<v Speaker 1>Clinton and Obama have been more on the side of

0:28:35.080 --> 0:28:38.080
<v Speaker 1>of opening opening trade barriers and things like that. So

0:28:38.640 --> 0:28:42.440
<v Speaker 1>and certainly George W. Bush, I think uh was was

0:28:42.520 --> 0:28:47.080
<v Speaker 1>part of that was part of that movement too. How

0:28:47.080 --> 0:28:51.000
<v Speaker 1>do you do you believe we does our does the

0:28:51.120 --> 0:28:55.600
<v Speaker 1>size of our economy indicate that that from a macro

0:28:55.760 --> 0:28:56.640
<v Speaker 1>level was a good idea?

0:28:58.720 --> 0:29:01.280
<v Speaker 2>No? Maybe, I'm by the question. I don't know what

0:29:01.320 --> 0:29:02.280
<v Speaker 2>the size.

0:29:02.920 --> 0:29:05.560
<v Speaker 1>How big our GDP is now and how big and

0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:08.360
<v Speaker 1>how frankly the amount of people that have been lifted

0:29:08.360 --> 0:29:13.600
<v Speaker 1>out of poverty worldwide that overall, this freer and open

0:29:13.640 --> 0:29:17.320
<v Speaker 1>trade has been better for a greater number of people

0:29:17.360 --> 0:29:20.120
<v Speaker 1>on the globe than not. I understand there have been

0:29:20.400 --> 0:29:24.200
<v Speaker 1>winners and losers, but on the whole, how would you

0:29:24.240 --> 0:29:24.720
<v Speaker 1>assess that?

0:29:26.320 --> 0:29:28.800
<v Speaker 2>Well? I think if you're looking around the world, there

0:29:28.800 --> 0:29:32.200
<v Speaker 2>are certainly a lot of people in China who benefited

0:29:32.240 --> 0:29:37.200
<v Speaker 2>greatly from the Chinese Communist Party's exploitation of the global

0:29:37.240 --> 0:29:42.320
<v Speaker 2>trading system. But I'm not sure what role that plays

0:29:42.360 --> 0:29:45.480
<v Speaker 2>in the assessment that you'd want an American policy maker

0:29:45.520 --> 0:29:47.920
<v Speaker 2>to have of the kind of policy that's good for

0:29:47.920 --> 0:29:50.960
<v Speaker 2>the United States. And here I think it's really important

0:29:51.000 --> 0:29:54.000
<v Speaker 2>to say that, you know, yes, the economy has continued

0:29:54.040 --> 0:29:58.840
<v Speaker 2>to grow during the period of globalization, doesn't really tell

0:29:58.880 --> 0:30:01.680
<v Speaker 2>you anything about globalistation. I mean, the economy was growing

0:30:02.600 --> 0:30:04.920
<v Speaker 2>in the period without globalization as well, right. In fact,

0:30:05.000 --> 0:30:08.640
<v Speaker 2>growth has slowed significantly over the past couple of decades.

0:30:08.680 --> 0:30:13.960
<v Speaker 2>Productivity growth has slowed, we see investment declining. And so

0:30:14.000 --> 0:30:17.720
<v Speaker 2>if you actually look at the tradition of American economic policy,

0:30:18.000 --> 0:30:22.320
<v Speaker 2>you know, certainly, up until World War Two, high tariffs

0:30:22.360 --> 0:30:26.960
<v Speaker 2>were the norm. The Republican Party began as the party

0:30:26.960 --> 0:30:29.560
<v Speaker 2>of tariffs. And so I think it's a little bit

0:30:29.640 --> 0:30:32.440
<v Speaker 2>lazy to say, like, well, but back then, I would

0:30:32.480 --> 0:30:35.200
<v Speaker 2>argue the reconization must be a good thing. That doesn't

0:30:35.560 --> 0:30:36.920
<v Speaker 2>an economic analysis.

0:30:37.200 --> 0:30:39.080
<v Speaker 1>But I guess what I would argue is that, so

0:30:39.160 --> 0:30:41.400
<v Speaker 1>take what why was the Republican Party? I would argue,

0:30:41.400 --> 0:30:44.120
<v Speaker 1>why was the Republican Party a bit more pro tariff

0:30:44.120 --> 0:30:46.000
<v Speaker 1>back in the early parts of the twenty century, pre

0:30:46.080 --> 0:30:50.080
<v Speaker 1>World War Two, well, American business primarily made its money

0:30:50.160 --> 0:30:53.480
<v Speaker 1>on Americans and primarily, you know, there wasn't nessus and

0:30:53.560 --> 0:30:59.200
<v Speaker 1>in fact didn't want to see their business shaken up

0:30:59.240 --> 0:31:03.360
<v Speaker 1>by outside by foreign forces. So in some ways there

0:31:03.480 --> 0:31:07.080
<v Speaker 1>was It made sense to me that business policy, the

0:31:07.120 --> 0:31:11.760
<v Speaker 1>pro business side of the argument, was to make sure

0:31:11.880 --> 0:31:16.080
<v Speaker 1>American businesses were protected from its outside competition.

0:31:17.400 --> 0:31:20.400
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I'm pretty sure Abraham Lincoln wasn't a tariff

0:31:20.440 --> 0:31:23.120
<v Speaker 2>guy because that's what the US Chamber of Commerce told him.

0:31:23.120 --> 0:31:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Oh I'm not saying that, but it was. In fact,

0:31:26.440 --> 0:31:29.720
<v Speaker 1>then we weren't right, there wasn't really a global economy.

0:31:29.720 --> 0:31:33.440
<v Speaker 2>That's my point. Well, that is certainly true to some extent.

0:31:33.520 --> 0:31:35.600
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's it's interesting to see actually that that

0:31:35.640 --> 0:31:38.160
<v Speaker 2>you know, trade was in many ways much higher in

0:31:38.200 --> 0:31:41.360
<v Speaker 2>the early twentieth century than in the mid twentieth century.

0:31:42.720 --> 0:31:45.920
<v Speaker 2>My point is just that the sort of market fundamentalism

0:31:46.680 --> 0:31:49.440
<v Speaker 2>and the assumption that free trade is always good regardless

0:31:49.440 --> 0:31:53.040
<v Speaker 2>of how other countries are behaving. It is a sort

0:31:53.040 --> 0:31:58.080
<v Speaker 2>of very weird and recent point of view that again,

0:31:58.120 --> 0:32:00.280
<v Speaker 2>not even Ronald Reagan held. I mean, look at how

0:32:00.320 --> 0:32:04.520
<v Speaker 2>Reagan approached the Japanese on a range of issues. It

0:32:04.920 --> 0:32:09.000
<v Speaker 2>was always very well understood that free trade can be

0:32:09.080 --> 0:32:13.560
<v Speaker 2>a good thing, That trade that actually entails the trade

0:32:13.600 --> 0:32:16.160
<v Speaker 2>of things you make for things that others make, can

0:32:16.200 --> 0:32:19.440
<v Speaker 2>benefit everybody, but that they are also an awful lot

0:32:19.480 --> 0:32:21.880
<v Speaker 2>of ways that it can go wrong. And I think

0:32:21.880 --> 0:32:25.320
<v Speaker 2>what we really lost, especially in the post World War period,

0:32:26.120 --> 0:32:27.960
<v Speaker 2>when people sort of thought, well, you know, the US

0:32:28.040 --> 0:32:30.600
<v Speaker 2>is now the loan superpower. It's in our interest to

0:32:30.680 --> 0:32:34.600
<v Speaker 2>preside over this liberal world order that's going to benefit everybody.

0:32:35.040 --> 0:32:38.640
<v Speaker 2>Of course, the real case for embracing China was that

0:32:38.680 --> 0:32:41.720
<v Speaker 2>this was going to somehow lead them to liberalize and democratiz.

0:32:41.840 --> 0:32:45.040
<v Speaker 1>Did that work? That's probably the biggest, Right, there's the

0:32:45.080 --> 0:32:49.080
<v Speaker 1>biggest bipartisan foreign policy prediction failure. However you want to

0:32:49.120 --> 0:32:51.920
<v Speaker 1>blump that in, is just that because that was the

0:32:52.000 --> 0:32:55.000
<v Speaker 1>argument to give them a seat at the table. Wto right,

0:32:55.080 --> 0:32:58.120
<v Speaker 1>that was the argument. Not the more they the more

0:32:58.200 --> 0:33:03.080
<v Speaker 1>you introduce the market to China, eventually communism will disappear.

0:33:03.760 --> 0:33:06.000
<v Speaker 2>Right, And so the question now if you if you just

0:33:06.080 --> 0:33:08.080
<v Speaker 2>say okay, well, let's say you could go back from

0:33:08.080 --> 0:33:11.200
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty five to two thousand and say, hey, guys,

0:33:11.200 --> 0:33:13.240
<v Speaker 2>if you do this, here's how it's going to look.

0:33:13.280 --> 0:33:16.440
<v Speaker 2>This is what China is going to become. Would anybody

0:33:16.520 --> 0:33:19.080
<v Speaker 2>would you know, would would the economists like Larry Summers

0:33:19.120 --> 0:33:22.480
<v Speaker 2>who were pounding the table saying this is the most

0:33:22.560 --> 0:33:25.640
<v Speaker 2>important thing we can be doing. Would they say, yeah,

0:33:25.680 --> 0:33:27.840
<v Speaker 2>this is still a great idea, even if this is

0:33:27.880 --> 0:33:30.800
<v Speaker 2>the direction China is going to go. There are a

0:33:30.880 --> 0:33:34.680
<v Speaker 2>few sort of really crazy libertarians who would still say yes,

0:33:34.760 --> 0:33:37.920
<v Speaker 2>free trade, no matter what. But I think virtually anybody

0:33:37.920 --> 0:33:40.720
<v Speaker 2>would say no. It obviously makes no sense to try

0:33:40.760 --> 0:33:43.600
<v Speaker 2>to pursue free trade in this way with such a

0:33:43.680 --> 0:33:48.400
<v Speaker 2>totally incompatible economic and political system. And we are we

0:33:48.440 --> 0:33:50.920
<v Speaker 2>are living with the consequences of that error, and I

0:33:50.920 --> 0:33:53.520
<v Speaker 2>think fortunately we're now starting to unwind it.

0:33:54.200 --> 0:33:58.080
<v Speaker 1>So I guess the thing that was sort of confusing

0:33:58.120 --> 0:34:00.800
<v Speaker 1>about how this was rolled out is that was it.

0:34:00.800 --> 0:34:05.360
<v Speaker 1>It felt as if this this terriff regiment was it

0:34:05.400 --> 0:34:08.000
<v Speaker 1>was almost like implemented like a machine gun. You know,

0:34:08.480 --> 0:34:11.440
<v Speaker 1>it hit everybody when really the real target. I mean,

0:34:11.440 --> 0:34:13.400
<v Speaker 1>think about what we just spent the last ten minutes

0:34:13.400 --> 0:34:16.279
<v Speaker 1>talking about China, right, this is really about China. This

0:34:16.360 --> 0:34:21.800
<v Speaker 1>is about creating a fair trade relationship between the United

0:34:21.840 --> 0:34:26.239
<v Speaker 1>States and China, the two largest economies. Is there a

0:34:26.280 --> 0:34:28.400
<v Speaker 1>better way we could have kept our allies on our

0:34:28.480 --> 0:34:33.640
<v Speaker 1>side on this? And are we risking China? You know,

0:34:33.680 --> 0:34:38.919
<v Speaker 1>are we risking the EU ending up cutting a more

0:34:40.080 --> 0:34:42.120
<v Speaker 1>a deal with China that we're going to regret they cut.

0:34:43.400 --> 0:34:46.440
<v Speaker 2>Well, I mean, first of all, it's the EU that

0:34:46.520 --> 0:34:48.480
<v Speaker 2>is going to regret if it cuts the deal with

0:34:48.560 --> 0:34:52.120
<v Speaker 2>China like that. But I think we're broadly it's important

0:34:52.120 --> 0:34:54.120
<v Speaker 2>to say that this isn't just about China. That you know,

0:34:54.320 --> 0:34:56.480
<v Speaker 2>we were just talking about China for the last ten minutes,

0:34:56.520 --> 0:34:59.080
<v Speaker 2>because I had been describing how you're going all the

0:34:59.120 --> 0:35:01.719
<v Speaker 2>way back to twenty two twelve. That had been an

0:35:01.719 --> 0:35:04.279
<v Speaker 2>issue that even somebody like Romney was starting to look

0:35:04.320 --> 0:35:06.520
<v Speaker 2>at it and say, wait a minute, this is not working.

0:35:06.520 --> 0:35:09.520
<v Speaker 1>But this seems to be the driver of tariff policies

0:35:09.560 --> 0:35:11.359
<v Speaker 1>in both parties right now, is how do we deal

0:35:11.400 --> 0:35:11.799
<v Speaker 1>with China?

0:35:12.400 --> 0:35:14.480
<v Speaker 2>No, I should think that's certainly not the case when

0:35:14.480 --> 0:35:17.400
<v Speaker 2>you look at the Trump administration's approach, and if you

0:35:17.480 --> 0:35:19.919
<v Speaker 2>go back all the way to you know, the order

0:35:20.000 --> 0:35:24.640
<v Speaker 2>that that they issued on day one America first trade policy.

0:35:25.680 --> 0:35:29.239
<v Speaker 2>The focus was on balance and the idea that that

0:35:29.480 --> 0:35:32.920
<v Speaker 2>balanced trade is a very valuable and productive thing, but

0:35:33.000 --> 0:35:37.160
<v Speaker 2>that imbalanced trade, where we run massive trade deficits in

0:35:37.200 --> 0:35:40.360
<v Speaker 2>the long run, is not a good thing. And China

0:35:40.440 --> 0:35:43.759
<v Speaker 2>is the quintessential illustration of this. You look at the

0:35:43.840 --> 0:35:47.759
<v Speaker 2>relationship with China and how imbalanced it is, and you say, oh, yeah,

0:35:47.760 --> 0:35:49.640
<v Speaker 2>it makes sense that there's something wrong there.

0:35:50.480 --> 0:35:52.800
<v Speaker 1>But well, they argue they have a bigger consumer market

0:35:52.800 --> 0:35:53.279
<v Speaker 1>than we do.

0:35:54.000 --> 0:35:56.320
<v Speaker 2>Right, you know, we can't have a bigger consumer market

0:35:56.360 --> 0:35:56.719
<v Speaker 2>than we do.

0:35:56.800 --> 0:35:59.600
<v Speaker 1>No, they don't, but they But that's always what I

0:35:59.600 --> 0:36:02.440
<v Speaker 1>would say is in theory because of the size of

0:36:02.480 --> 0:36:05.560
<v Speaker 1>their population, that is why so many American companies are

0:36:05.560 --> 0:36:09.719
<v Speaker 1>fighting for an opportunity in there, because that's the I

0:36:09.760 --> 0:36:12.520
<v Speaker 1>think I've always believed that's the payday they think they're

0:36:12.560 --> 0:36:13.000
<v Speaker 1>counting on.

0:36:13.800 --> 0:36:16.520
<v Speaker 2>That's right theory, the case for free trade. And again,

0:36:16.560 --> 0:36:18.239
<v Speaker 2>if you go back to what people are saying in

0:36:18.239 --> 0:36:20.920
<v Speaker 2>the year two thousand was yes, there are lots of

0:36:21.040 --> 0:36:23.680
<v Speaker 2>jobs that will go over there where they will make

0:36:23.719 --> 0:36:25.960
<v Speaker 2>things that we used to make for ourselves, but we

0:36:26.040 --> 0:36:28.920
<v Speaker 2>will get just as many new opportunities to make things

0:36:28.920 --> 0:36:32.800
<v Speaker 2>for that, and that just did not happen. That being said,

0:36:33.320 --> 0:36:36.120
<v Speaker 2>even if you zeroed out trade with China and the

0:36:36.200 --> 0:36:39.400
<v Speaker 2>US would still have a massive trade deficit. China doesn't

0:36:39.400 --> 0:36:41.760
<v Speaker 2>even account for the majority of our trade deficit.

0:36:42.600 --> 0:36:44.719
<v Speaker 1>How much of our trade deficit with everybody else is

0:36:44.719 --> 0:36:47.200
<v Speaker 1>just simply we are the biggest consumer market there is.

0:36:48.160 --> 0:36:50.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, why would that lead to a trade deficit.

0:36:51.200 --> 0:36:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Well, we're going to consume more goods from the outside

0:36:54.200 --> 0:36:56.680
<v Speaker 1>than a smaller country is going to be able to

0:36:56.680 --> 0:36:57.840
<v Speaker 1>consume of our goods.

0:36:58.680 --> 0:37:02.719
<v Speaker 2>Yes, but that's not I'm sorry, that's not how it works.

0:37:02.520 --> 0:37:04.680
<v Speaker 1>That well, I understand that's not how it works, but

0:37:04.719 --> 0:37:06.520
<v Speaker 1>it does seem as if the math on what's the

0:37:06.560 --> 0:37:08.840
<v Speaker 1>trade deficit, I mean, the fact is we're going to

0:37:08.840 --> 0:37:09.000
<v Speaker 1>have it.

0:37:09.480 --> 0:37:10.200
<v Speaker 2>That makes no sense.

0:37:10.280 --> 0:37:12.080
<v Speaker 1>Let me well, then walk me through this, walk me

0:37:12.200 --> 0:37:15.120
<v Speaker 1>through the walk me through the math here on how

0:37:15.160 --> 0:37:18.799
<v Speaker 1>you define a balanced relationship when it is not. You know,

0:37:19.120 --> 0:37:22.160
<v Speaker 1>we're not always going to have an export that a

0:37:22.239 --> 0:37:25.400
<v Speaker 1>smaller country is going to consume at the same levels

0:37:25.400 --> 0:37:28.040
<v Speaker 1>that we might consume an export that they send us.

0:37:28.560 --> 0:37:30.520
<v Speaker 2>I think that that can be very well true of

0:37:30.640 --> 0:37:34.200
<v Speaker 2>very small developing countries. But we're not talking mainly about

0:37:34.239 --> 0:37:35.440
<v Speaker 2>small developing countries.

0:37:35.560 --> 0:37:37.359
<v Speaker 1>But we did slap a bunch of tariffs on those

0:37:37.360 --> 0:37:38.120
<v Speaker 1>folks too.

0:37:38.480 --> 0:37:41.239
<v Speaker 2>Yes, and and there are some very real problems with

0:37:41.480 --> 0:37:43.680
<v Speaker 2>leaving them out. And one that we see is what's

0:37:43.719 --> 0:37:45.359
<v Speaker 2>called transshipment, which is, if.

0:37:45.440 --> 0:37:47.680
<v Speaker 1>We get that, the cheat, the cheating where they do.

0:37:49.440 --> 0:37:49.560
<v Speaker 2>This.

0:37:49.680 --> 0:37:51.160
<v Speaker 1>So I understand that at me.

0:37:51.640 --> 0:37:53.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, okay, but this is what drives me nuts is

0:37:53.520 --> 0:37:56.400
<v Speaker 2>the frequency was just like, well, let's find something to

0:37:56.440 --> 0:37:58.480
<v Speaker 2>poke at and score a point on. And then you

0:37:58.520 --> 0:38:00.480
<v Speaker 2>back and you're like, no, no, actually, I under standard

0:38:00.480 --> 0:38:00.920
<v Speaker 2>does make it.

0:38:01.000 --> 0:38:05.040
<v Speaker 1>No. I look, I understand the theory behind it, but

0:38:05.120 --> 0:38:06.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if you can ever get to the balance.

0:38:06.800 --> 0:38:09.200
<v Speaker 1>But anyway, go ahead. I'm sitting here talking over you,

0:38:09.239 --> 0:38:10.880
<v Speaker 1>and that is not what I intend to do. I

0:38:10.920 --> 0:38:12.520
<v Speaker 1>want you to explain your point of view here.

0:38:12.560 --> 0:38:15.840
<v Speaker 2>Go forth. So let's focus on the other major companies

0:38:15.960 --> 0:38:19.960
<v Speaker 2>like Japan, like Germany, the massive imbalances that we have

0:38:20.040 --> 0:38:24.000
<v Speaker 2>with those countries, more recently with Mexico as well, in

0:38:24.040 --> 0:38:26.520
<v Speaker 2>part because a lot that used to come from China

0:38:26.600 --> 0:38:30.920
<v Speaker 2>started coming in through Mexico instead. Those imbalances are not

0:38:31.040 --> 0:38:33.320
<v Speaker 2>explained by some theory of you know, we have a

0:38:33.360 --> 0:38:36.080
<v Speaker 2>bigger consumer market than they do at the end of

0:38:36.120 --> 0:38:37.719
<v Speaker 2>the day, if you go all the way back to

0:38:37.719 --> 0:38:39.560
<v Speaker 2>Adam Smith, you go back all the way to the

0:38:39.600 --> 0:38:43.200
<v Speaker 2>economists who first made the arguments about why trade works.

0:38:43.880 --> 0:38:48.080
<v Speaker 2>The entire premise is that you are trading stuff for stuff, right,

0:38:48.120 --> 0:38:51.000
<v Speaker 2>the word is trade. And so what's so important to

0:38:51.080 --> 0:38:54.120
<v Speaker 2>recognize is if you say, well, okay, but why you

0:38:54.160 --> 0:38:56.359
<v Speaker 2>don't need to have balance trade? It could be imbalanced

0:38:57.440 --> 0:38:59.560
<v Speaker 2>and maybe you know, because someone's market is bigger than

0:38:59.560 --> 0:39:02.680
<v Speaker 2>somebody else els it's important to recognize that it's not

0:39:02.760 --> 0:39:06.400
<v Speaker 2>like they're just giving us the stuff. If we're not

0:39:06.560 --> 0:39:09.279
<v Speaker 2>trading stuff that we make for stuff that they make.

0:39:09.640 --> 0:39:13.120
<v Speaker 2>What we are trading instead is our assets. So what

0:39:13.320 --> 0:39:18.200
<v Speaker 2>happens is countries like Japan and Germany and China send

0:39:18.280 --> 0:39:22.240
<v Speaker 2>us enormous amounts of stuff that they produce, and instead

0:39:22.280 --> 0:39:25.399
<v Speaker 2>of in return receiving things that we produce, what they

0:39:25.480 --> 0:39:29.040
<v Speaker 2>receive from us are assets. They receive ownership of our

0:39:29.080 --> 0:39:33.000
<v Speaker 2>corporations in real estate, they receive lots and lots of debt,

0:39:33.280 --> 0:39:36.200
<v Speaker 2>meeting pieces of paper saying we will pay you for

0:39:36.239 --> 0:39:40.120
<v Speaker 2>this someday. And there are lots of really interesting reasons

0:39:40.160 --> 0:39:44.359
<v Speaker 2>why they like that trade as well, But the end

0:39:44.400 --> 0:39:47.200
<v Speaker 2>result of it is therefore a double hollowing out. In

0:39:47.280 --> 0:39:49.560
<v Speaker 2>the short run, you would say, hey, it's great, we

0:39:49.600 --> 0:39:51.600
<v Speaker 2>got to consume a lot of stuff and didn't even

0:39:51.600 --> 0:39:54.400
<v Speaker 2>have to make anything, but that comes at the expense

0:39:54.640 --> 0:39:58.560
<v Speaker 2>of the strength of our economy, the opportunities for workers,

0:40:00.080 --> 0:40:02.880
<v Speaker 2>kinds of investments we do or don't make. And then

0:40:02.920 --> 0:40:05.760
<v Speaker 2>in the long run, of course, we've essentially mortgaged the future.

0:40:06.320 --> 0:40:09.120
<v Speaker 2>We have handed over all of those future claims on

0:40:09.640 --> 0:40:14.080
<v Speaker 2>our prosperity two other countries in return for the consumption today.

0:40:14.920 --> 0:40:17.520
<v Speaker 2>And so you know, again, this is something that Warren

0:40:17.520 --> 0:40:19.840
<v Speaker 2>Buffett actually wrote a fascinating piece about this all the

0:40:19.880 --> 0:40:22.240
<v Speaker 2>way back in two thousand and three when these trends

0:40:22.280 --> 0:40:25.640
<v Speaker 2>were first just emerging. But yeah, just in very common

0:40:25.680 --> 0:40:29.759
<v Speaker 2>sense terms, if you want trade to actually work, it

0:40:29.800 --> 0:40:32.840
<v Speaker 2>has to be trade. And that, I think is the

0:40:33.320 --> 0:40:35.960
<v Speaker 2>core of the argument that the Trump administration is making,

0:40:36.200 --> 0:40:39.160
<v Speaker 2>and one that's absolutely correct, is that we would love

0:40:39.200 --> 0:40:43.960
<v Speaker 2>to have robust trade with Japan, with Germany, with the

0:40:44.000 --> 0:40:47.200
<v Speaker 2>rest of the world broadly, but it needs if it's

0:40:47.239 --> 0:40:49.480
<v Speaker 2>going to work, for the United States, to be the

0:40:49.600 --> 0:40:52.560
<v Speaker 2>kind of trade in which other countries are buying things

0:40:52.600 --> 0:40:55.399
<v Speaker 2>for us and we are in turn buying things from

0:40:55.480 --> 0:40:56.080
<v Speaker 2>other countries.

0:40:57.120 --> 0:41:02.440
<v Speaker 1>Let me go back to NAFTA, because there's it's clear, right,

0:41:02.560 --> 0:41:06.000
<v Speaker 1>NAFTA's is frank I joke. It's a five letter acronym,

0:41:06.040 --> 0:41:08.480
<v Speaker 1>but it's a four letter word in places like Iowa

0:41:08.560 --> 0:41:12.960
<v Speaker 1>and Ohio. And you know this quite well. But there

0:41:12.960 --> 0:41:14.640
<v Speaker 1>were two things that sort of came out of NAFTA.

0:41:14.680 --> 0:41:20.440
<v Speaker 1>While while the industrial Midwest got it, the sun Belt

0:41:20.520 --> 0:41:23.280
<v Speaker 1>benefited quite a bit. Right. There were winners and losers

0:41:23.280 --> 0:41:25.640
<v Speaker 1>within it. And I think this is what makes I

0:41:25.640 --> 0:41:28.400
<v Speaker 1>think trade deals very complicated for the United States. Because

0:41:28.440 --> 0:41:31.400
<v Speaker 1>our economy is really diverse, because our workforce is really diverse,

0:41:33.040 --> 0:41:38.200
<v Speaker 1>you can have these sort of different outcomes, and I

0:41:38.280 --> 0:41:40.160
<v Speaker 1>think it's a challenge because you're going to pit one.

0:41:40.480 --> 0:41:41.880
<v Speaker 1>You may end up you don't want to do this

0:41:41.920 --> 0:41:44.319
<v Speaker 1>politically because this is a trap right where you're pitting

0:41:44.400 --> 0:41:50.359
<v Speaker 1>one region against the other. Let's say we know what

0:41:50.440 --> 0:41:54.279
<v Speaker 1>NAFTA is going to do to these industrial towns and

0:41:54.840 --> 0:41:57.200
<v Speaker 1>Iowa and Ohio, I want to focus on those two.

0:41:57.239 --> 0:41:58.839
<v Speaker 1>I know those two states better, and that's the only

0:41:58.880 --> 0:42:03.640
<v Speaker 1>reason I'm doing it. Was there a better way to

0:42:03.719 --> 0:42:08.319
<v Speaker 1>implement the vocational trading. Was there a better way to

0:42:08.560 --> 0:42:13.839
<v Speaker 1>encourage domestic migration, which arguably has been a way that

0:42:14.520 --> 0:42:16.640
<v Speaker 1>the United States has sort of you know, people have

0:42:16.719 --> 0:42:19.880
<v Speaker 1>improved their lives in the past. What could we have

0:42:19.960 --> 0:42:23.320
<v Speaker 1>done differently that would have minimized this impact on Iowa

0:42:23.440 --> 0:42:28.960
<v Speaker 1>and Ohio that we ended up with without hurting the

0:42:29.040 --> 0:42:33.920
<v Speaker 1>advancements that have been made in South Carolina, Alabama, you know, Tennessee,

0:42:34.040 --> 0:42:38.160
<v Speaker 1>the states that have that have in Texas in particular,

0:42:38.239 --> 0:42:43.319
<v Speaker 1>right that has benefited a lot from NAFTA. So, you know,

0:42:43.480 --> 0:42:46.680
<v Speaker 1>how how how could we have done this better even

0:42:46.680 --> 0:42:50.839
<v Speaker 1>if we decided to still produce proceed along this road

0:42:50.880 --> 0:42:55.040
<v Speaker 1>of a of essentially a North America uh Trade Agreement

0:42:55.080 --> 0:42:55.840
<v Speaker 1>pre trade agreement.

0:42:56.960 --> 0:42:59.440
<v Speaker 2>Well, one element is I think we could have structured

0:42:59.680 --> 0:43:03.760
<v Speaker 2>the differently. You know, we could have structured it certainly

0:43:03.800 --> 0:43:08.120
<v Speaker 2>to provide much stronger, for instance, labor protections, so that

0:43:08.600 --> 0:43:12.120
<v Speaker 2>the strategy did not just become investors are moving to

0:43:12.200 --> 0:43:16.760
<v Speaker 2>Mexico because it's easier to exploit workers in Mexico. Uh.

0:43:16.800 --> 0:43:18.800
<v Speaker 1>You know, if you think about what is the actual

0:43:18.920 --> 0:43:22.520
<v Speaker 1>basis for union arguments at the time, they were just

0:43:22.520 --> 0:43:25.120
<v Speaker 1>sitting there going. If you don't, don't we don't demand

0:43:25.160 --> 0:43:28.600
<v Speaker 1>some sort of higher floor on wages in Mexico. This

0:43:28.760 --> 0:43:31.680
<v Speaker 1>is you know, as Ross PuO famously once said, the

0:43:31.719 --> 0:43:33.040
<v Speaker 1>giant sucking sound.

0:43:33.320 --> 0:43:35.120
<v Speaker 2>Well and this again, you know, this is why I

0:43:35.120 --> 0:43:37.400
<v Speaker 2>always prop on this question, like what is the actual

0:43:37.480 --> 0:43:40.239
<v Speaker 2>theory of trade here? Why are we expecting it to

0:43:40.239 --> 0:43:43.520
<v Speaker 2>be beneficial in theory. We expect it to be beneficial

0:43:43.560 --> 0:43:47.799
<v Speaker 2>because we think there's value in specialization. If if there

0:43:47.800 --> 0:43:50.960
<v Speaker 2>are things they can do more efficiently in Mexico and

0:43:51.000 --> 0:43:54.640
<v Speaker 2>things we can do more efficiently here, that's great. We

0:43:54.719 --> 0:43:57.000
<v Speaker 2>think there are benefits of scale. If we have a

0:43:57.040 --> 0:44:00.600
<v Speaker 2>bigger North American market for everybody to sell into, we

0:44:00.680 --> 0:44:03.839
<v Speaker 2>can make games from that. The problem is that when

0:44:03.840 --> 0:44:07.520
<v Speaker 2>you look at where the actual what is actually driving

0:44:08.040 --> 0:44:11.759
<v Speaker 2>investment and economic moves in trade, too often it's none

0:44:11.800 --> 0:44:16.520
<v Speaker 2>of that at all. It's just investors and corporations saying, hey,

0:44:16.560 --> 0:44:20.399
<v Speaker 2>we can exploit labor and pay people a lot less

0:44:20.440 --> 0:44:22.040
<v Speaker 2>to do the same thing somewhere else.

0:44:22.600 --> 0:44:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Hasn't this been a but hasn't this been what the

0:44:25.280 --> 0:44:28.080
<v Speaker 1>entire twentieth century? I mean, you know, the first toys

0:44:28.120 --> 0:44:30.799
<v Speaker 1>I had were made in Taiwan and firs, excuse me,

0:44:30.840 --> 0:44:32.920
<v Speaker 1>made in West Germany. That's always my favorite of these

0:44:32.920 --> 0:44:35.440
<v Speaker 1>little matchbox cards where you made in West Germany. I

0:44:35.480 --> 0:44:37.239
<v Speaker 1>saved one because how often you're going to see that

0:44:37.280 --> 0:44:41.080
<v Speaker 1>these days. Then things were made in Taiwan, right, then

0:44:41.160 --> 0:44:43.560
<v Speaker 1>things were made in Japan. But the point is is

0:44:43.600 --> 0:44:46.560
<v Speaker 1>that it feels as if this has been that this

0:44:46.719 --> 0:44:50.320
<v Speaker 1>is what an industrial capitalism looks like. Right, There's always

0:44:50.480 --> 0:44:55.759
<v Speaker 1>going to be some place that an industry finds to

0:44:55.880 --> 0:44:58.360
<v Speaker 1>go to that'll be a cheaper way to make their widget.

0:45:00.040 --> 0:45:02.080
<v Speaker 2>There's no reason that that should be the case. And

0:45:02.480 --> 0:45:05.799
<v Speaker 2>again that's not the theory as it's soul. Right, go

0:45:05.920 --> 0:45:08.320
<v Speaker 2>back to what economists say when they're saying we should

0:45:08.320 --> 0:45:11.440
<v Speaker 2>do NAFTA, we should do wto. The arguments are there

0:45:11.480 --> 0:45:14.040
<v Speaker 2>are some things that are going to be relatively more

0:45:14.600 --> 0:45:17.839
<v Speaker 2>efficiently produced in those other places, but there are other

0:45:17.920 --> 0:45:21.000
<v Speaker 2>things that are going to be relatively more efficiently produced

0:45:21.000 --> 0:45:23.920
<v Speaker 2>in the United States. And so the game comes from

0:45:23.960 --> 0:45:26.680
<v Speaker 2>the fact that, yes, maybe they're making the toy cars

0:45:26.680 --> 0:45:30.400
<v Speaker 2>for us, and we are making the industrial equipment that

0:45:31.280 --> 0:45:35.359
<v Speaker 2>makes the toy cars. Right, And again, there was a

0:45:35.360 --> 0:45:37.200
<v Speaker 2>time when that was the case. I mean, you go

0:45:37.280 --> 0:45:41.439
<v Speaker 2>back to the nineteen seventies, you know, sixties and seventies,

0:45:41.760 --> 0:45:45.920
<v Speaker 2>the US essentially did have balanced trade. It is a

0:45:46.040 --> 0:45:49.960
<v Speaker 2>much more recent phenomenon that in many ways was driven

0:45:50.160 --> 0:45:54.520
<v Speaker 2>by the development strategy in these East Asian countries that said,

0:45:54.600 --> 0:45:57.640
<v Speaker 2>the way that we are going to grow is by

0:45:58.120 --> 0:46:04.120
<v Speaker 2>investing massively in very competitive export sectors. So we are

0:46:04.120 --> 0:46:06.719
<v Speaker 2>going to we are going to such arrange our economy

0:46:06.840 --> 0:46:09.960
<v Speaker 2>to hold down the cost of our labor and drive

0:46:10.000 --> 0:46:14.560
<v Speaker 2>as much savings as possible into manufacturing growth that we

0:46:14.600 --> 0:46:18.319
<v Speaker 2>can sell into the American market, because those Americans are

0:46:18.360 --> 0:46:21.640
<v Speaker 2>sitting there saying, yes, please send us more cheap stuff.

0:46:22.600 --> 0:46:24.880
<v Speaker 2>And so certainly it's it's important to say right like

0:46:25.239 --> 0:46:27.160
<v Speaker 2>this is this is our own fault too.

0:46:27.480 --> 0:46:29.520
<v Speaker 1>So I've heard you say that you think people would

0:46:29.520 --> 0:46:31.279
<v Speaker 1>be willing to pay more if they knew it was

0:46:31.280 --> 0:46:35.640
<v Speaker 1>made in America. I I I was raised by a

0:46:35.680 --> 0:46:39.120
<v Speaker 1>father who's we were the last owners of a Zenith

0:46:39.160 --> 0:46:44.319
<v Speaker 1>television because Zenith was the last TV that made that

0:46:44.680 --> 0:46:48.640
<v Speaker 1>mostly had its parts made in America. Okay, even then,

0:46:48.680 --> 0:46:52.400
<v Speaker 1>and I remember, but at some point it became an

0:46:52.440 --> 0:46:54.160
<v Speaker 1>impossibility to even do that.

0:46:56.080 --> 0:46:58.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think to be clear, I think the sort

0:46:58.239 --> 0:47:00.719
<v Speaker 2>of would you pay more for something made in America

0:47:01.600 --> 0:47:04.160
<v Speaker 2>is not quite the right question to ask. It reminds

0:47:04.200 --> 0:47:06.160
<v Speaker 2>me of you know, I live in Massachusetts, and when

0:47:06.200 --> 0:47:08.719
<v Speaker 2>you file your taxes, there's a little checkbox you can

0:47:08.800 --> 0:47:11.000
<v Speaker 2>check if you just want to pay a higher tax rate.

0:47:11.680 --> 0:47:14.440
<v Speaker 2>And you know, unsurprisingly not a lot of people check that.

0:47:14.520 --> 0:47:16.839
<v Speaker 2>Trust people don't check that box. I know that's away. Yeah,

0:47:16.840 --> 0:47:18.560
<v Speaker 2>not even people who believe that.

0:47:18.719 --> 0:47:21.200
<v Speaker 1>Remember we used to have the contributing money to the

0:47:21.239 --> 0:47:24.839
<v Speaker 1>Presidential Matching Committee fund. Sure that got a little bit

0:47:24.840 --> 0:47:26.000
<v Speaker 1>more attention.

0:47:26.160 --> 0:47:28.759
<v Speaker 2>But anyway, the right way I think to think about

0:47:28.760 --> 0:47:31.160
<v Speaker 2>it is that there's a much more fundamental trade off

0:47:31.239 --> 0:47:35.520
<v Speaker 2>going on between whether we want to have a robust

0:47:35.560 --> 0:47:40.799
<v Speaker 2>industrial economy or whether we want to just encourage our

0:47:40.920 --> 0:47:46.080
<v Speaker 2>corporations to go elsewhere and send back the cheapest possible stuff.

0:47:46.960 --> 0:47:50.640
<v Speaker 2>And so, yes, one implication of making a different choice

0:47:50.880 --> 0:47:54.160
<v Speaker 2>in that regard would be that some things might cost mole.

0:47:54.920 --> 0:47:57.479
<v Speaker 2>But the choice you're making is not well, I feel

0:47:57.480 --> 0:47:59.839
<v Speaker 2>good about it saying made in America, so I will pay,

0:48:00.160 --> 0:48:03.240
<v Speaker 2>or the trade offf you're making is about the basic

0:48:03.360 --> 0:48:06.480
<v Speaker 2>kind of country that you want to have, and I

0:48:06.520 --> 0:48:08.719
<v Speaker 2>think the best way to think about that trade off

0:48:08.760 --> 0:48:11.560
<v Speaker 2>is to recognize that we took one side of it

0:48:11.880 --> 0:48:14.279
<v Speaker 2>back in you know, the nineteen nineties, and then two

0:48:14.320 --> 0:48:20.080
<v Speaker 2>thousand we said making things doesn't matter. We want the

0:48:20.160 --> 0:48:24.440
<v Speaker 2>cheapest possible stuff go. And we have now seen the

0:48:24.480 --> 0:48:26.759
<v Speaker 2>results of that over the past few decades, and I

0:48:26.760 --> 0:48:30.080
<v Speaker 2>think the vast majority of Americans are looking at as

0:48:30.239 --> 0:48:34.080
<v Speaker 2>an at that as an unwise choice. And so my

0:48:34.320 --> 0:48:36.560
<v Speaker 2>claim is not that people want to pay more to

0:48:36.600 --> 0:48:38.480
<v Speaker 2>feel good about a made in America label.

0:48:38.880 --> 0:48:41.000
<v Speaker 1>It's that you want to know they may say that,

0:48:41.120 --> 0:48:42.960
<v Speaker 1>even if they say it in a poll, that's right,

0:48:43.000 --> 0:48:44.799
<v Speaker 1>but that's not going to behave that way.

0:48:44.840 --> 0:48:47.560
<v Speaker 2>The question is that what trade off do they want

0:48:47.560 --> 0:48:49.319
<v Speaker 2>to make about the kind of nation we are?

0:48:49.840 --> 0:48:49.960
<v Speaker 1>Right?

0:48:50.000 --> 0:48:53.000
<v Speaker 2>And there I think it's absolutely correct that that most

0:48:53.080 --> 0:48:56.000
<v Speaker 2>people regret the trade off that was made and would

0:48:56.120 --> 0:48:57.760
<v Speaker 2>like to see us making a different one.

0:48:57.960 --> 0:49:02.920
<v Speaker 1>So you believe you can still unwind this sure with

0:49:03.200 --> 0:49:05.880
<v Speaker 1>how without too much damage to the economy? And I

0:49:05.880 --> 0:49:08.640
<v Speaker 1>say this, how do you do it without? And let

0:49:08.680 --> 0:49:11.040
<v Speaker 1>me give you an example. What happens to the Mercedes

0:49:11.040 --> 0:49:16.360
<v Speaker 1>and BMW factories in the South, and what would happen

0:49:16.400 --> 0:49:19.760
<v Speaker 1>to a foreign company that wants to make something here

0:49:22.080 --> 0:49:24.120
<v Speaker 1>in the way you would implement tarif pols.

0:49:24.520 --> 0:49:27.759
<v Speaker 2>Well, that's terrific, that's what we want more of. And

0:49:27.800 --> 0:49:30.600
<v Speaker 2>again that's where I think you put China to the

0:49:30.719 --> 0:49:33.880
<v Speaker 2>side where we need to more be decoupling from China.

0:49:33.960 --> 0:49:36.840
<v Speaker 2>We don't need China setting up its factories in the US.

0:49:37.520 --> 0:49:39.759
<v Speaker 2>But the auto industry, I think is actually probably the

0:49:39.800 --> 0:49:43.000
<v Speaker 2>best illustration of what we're talking about here, because you

0:49:43.040 --> 0:49:46.279
<v Speaker 2>have a very concrete case study going back to the

0:49:46.280 --> 0:49:50.319
<v Speaker 2>early nineteen eighties when Ronald Reagan comes into office, and

0:49:50.360 --> 0:49:53.839
<v Speaker 2>that's exactly when you had these cheaper, smaller, more fuel

0:49:53.880 --> 0:49:57.840
<v Speaker 2>efficient Japanese vehicles flooding the market, posing sort of a

0:49:58.280 --> 0:50:02.480
<v Speaker 2>mortal challenge to the big three in Detroit. Now, what

0:50:02.520 --> 0:50:05.080
<v Speaker 2>did Reagan do? Did he say, Well, free trade is wonderful.

0:50:05.280 --> 0:50:07.839
<v Speaker 2>So that's it. We're just not going to have an

0:50:07.840 --> 0:50:12.279
<v Speaker 2>auto industry anymore. No, backed up by a threat, a

0:50:12.480 --> 0:50:17.480
<v Speaker 2>very credible threat of tariffs coming from Congress, Reagan negotiated

0:50:17.520 --> 0:50:20.919
<v Speaker 2>with the Japanese and the Japanese actually adopted what it's

0:50:21.000 --> 0:50:25.520
<v Speaker 2>called a voluntary export restraint. The Japanese said, this is

0:50:25.560 --> 0:50:28.120
<v Speaker 2>not sustainable. We don't want to go down the path

0:50:28.200 --> 0:50:31.120
<v Speaker 2>of trade war and tariffs that were headed toward. We

0:50:31.200 --> 0:50:35.040
<v Speaker 2>are going to tell our own producers stop importing into

0:50:35.040 --> 0:50:37.360
<v Speaker 2>the US market and go set up shop in the

0:50:37.440 --> 0:50:42.160
<v Speaker 2>US instead. And that is why Honda and Toyota and

0:50:42.200 --> 0:50:47.400
<v Speaker 2>then Nissan moved into the American South, ultimately leading to

0:50:47.480 --> 0:50:50.000
<v Speaker 2>tens of billions of dollars in investment, hundreds of thousands

0:50:50.040 --> 0:50:55.200
<v Speaker 2>of jobs. And now you have, yes Japanese you know,

0:50:55.320 --> 0:50:57.680
<v Speaker 2>name plates on a lot of cars driving around in

0:50:57.680 --> 0:51:01.799
<v Speaker 2>the US. But the Toyota Camry has more American made

0:51:01.880 --> 0:51:05.279
<v Speaker 2>content in it than a car from anybody coming, you know,

0:51:05.320 --> 0:51:09.319
<v Speaker 2>any of the Detroit manufacturers. And so that I think

0:51:09.400 --> 0:51:11.839
<v Speaker 2>is that is exactly what you see the Trump administration

0:51:11.920 --> 0:51:16.439
<v Speaker 2>now trying to do with these negotiations. Say to these countries, Look,

0:51:16.480 --> 0:51:19.920
<v Speaker 2>this old system of you just produce and we just

0:51:20.040 --> 0:51:23.920
<v Speaker 2>buy and you get back kind of ownership of the

0:51:24.000 --> 0:51:28.960
<v Speaker 2>United States is over. Let's talk about what you guys

0:51:29.000 --> 0:51:33.160
<v Speaker 2>can do to actually move us toward a balanced trading system.

0:51:33.400 --> 0:51:35.719
<v Speaker 2>And Stephen Mirian, who's the chair of the Council of

0:51:35.719 --> 0:51:38.200
<v Speaker 2>Economic Advisors, gave a very good speech a couple of

0:51:38.280 --> 0:51:41.160
<v Speaker 2>weeks ago at the Hudsons too, where he talked about

0:51:41.200 --> 0:51:43.840
<v Speaker 2>exactly this set of things. This is a perfect example

0:51:43.880 --> 0:51:48.680
<v Speaker 2>of what what these countries can do is tell their

0:51:48.719 --> 0:51:52.840
<v Speaker 2>corporations and use policy changes in their own countries to say,

0:51:53.640 --> 0:51:55.840
<v Speaker 2>we understand, we have reached the end of the road

0:51:56.480 --> 0:51:59.319
<v Speaker 2>on this model because the US is not going to

0:51:59.360 --> 0:52:03.840
<v Speaker 2>accept it any more. Go invest in the United States.

0:52:04.400 --> 0:52:08.640
<v Speaker 2>And just like the Japanese could build cars every bit

0:52:08.680 --> 0:52:11.760
<v Speaker 2>as effectively with the same quality at the same price

0:52:12.440 --> 0:52:15.040
<v Speaker 2>in the United States as they've been doing in Japan.

0:52:15.719 --> 0:52:19.440
<v Speaker 2>There's all manner of things that we are currently buying

0:52:19.560 --> 0:52:23.240
<v Speaker 2>from abroad that could instead be built in the United States.

0:52:23.239 --> 0:52:26.040
<v Speaker 2>We're seeing it right now with Chips TSMCT I want

0:52:26.040 --> 0:52:28.920
<v Speaker 2>a semiconductor it's already in that. You know, commit about

0:52:28.920 --> 0:52:31.480
<v Speaker 2>sixty five billion in investment. They've just announced another one

0:52:31.520 --> 0:52:34.960
<v Speaker 2>hundred billion. The most fascinating thing is they've actually they've

0:52:35.040 --> 0:52:38.120
<v Speaker 2>said so far the yield, the sort of quality and

0:52:38.160 --> 0:52:42.120
<v Speaker 2>efficiency of their production in Arizona is higher than it

0:52:42.200 --> 0:52:45.640
<v Speaker 2>is in Taiwan. So we can do these things. It's

0:52:45.680 --> 0:52:47.839
<v Speaker 2>a question of whether it's the trade off we want

0:52:47.840 --> 0:52:49.719
<v Speaker 2>to make and the policy we want to pursue.

0:52:49.960 --> 0:52:53.480
<v Speaker 1>How about low basically low cost manufacturing, right, whether it's

0:52:53.560 --> 0:52:56.560
<v Speaker 1>t shirts or trinkets or or whatever you want to

0:52:56.600 --> 0:52:59.760
<v Speaker 1>look at. But I want you to answer that question.

0:53:00.280 --> 0:53:02.760
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of small business owners that are American

0:53:02.800 --> 0:53:06.319
<v Speaker 1>business owners where they order most of their you know,

0:53:06.480 --> 0:53:10.560
<v Speaker 1>here's an American business who's most of their inventory comes

0:53:10.560 --> 0:53:15.040
<v Speaker 1>from Asia, but their parent American taxes all of those things.

0:53:15.160 --> 0:53:16.839
<v Speaker 1>They're going to get hurt and a lot of these

0:53:16.880 --> 0:53:19.680
<v Speaker 1>businesses are going to go under because they really don't

0:53:19.719 --> 0:53:23.759
<v Speaker 1>have an alternative, even even if there's eventually an alternative

0:53:23.760 --> 0:53:26.279
<v Speaker 1>way for them to stay in business. Right now, they're

0:53:26.320 --> 0:53:30.960
<v Speaker 1>not right. It's the shock they're you know, our supply

0:53:31.040 --> 0:53:34.319
<v Speaker 1>chains are really efficient and all of this stuff. What

0:53:34.520 --> 0:53:39.760
<v Speaker 1>happens to that sort of low cost manufacturing product, and

0:53:39.920 --> 0:53:43.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, the the hundreds of small, thousands of small

0:53:43.200 --> 0:53:46.320
<v Speaker 1>businesses that are counting on that inventory coming from Asia.

0:53:47.600 --> 0:53:49.920
<v Speaker 2>Well, I guess I would separate a couple of different

0:53:49.960 --> 0:53:53.839
<v Speaker 2>issues there. One is I totally agree that you need

0:53:53.880 --> 0:53:57.439
<v Speaker 2>that phasing period. You need to give companies a time

0:53:57.640 --> 0:54:00.480
<v Speaker 2>time to adjust. And that's why I say, you know,

0:54:00.600 --> 0:54:04.160
<v Speaker 2>high tariffs on day one, Yes, that causes some of

0:54:04.160 --> 0:54:04.680
<v Speaker 2>those tiy.

0:54:04.560 --> 0:54:06.880
<v Speaker 1>The way are you concerned that your idea here is

0:54:06.920 --> 0:54:09.399
<v Speaker 1>going to get drowned by poor implementation.

0:54:10.840 --> 0:54:14.080
<v Speaker 2>You know, that is a sort of endemic risk in policy,

0:54:14.080 --> 0:54:16.640
<v Speaker 2>in the in the policy wonkery I have chosen to

0:54:17.120 --> 0:54:21.040
<v Speaker 2>engage in for my career, I'm always, on one hand hesitant.

0:54:21.040 --> 0:54:24.640
<v Speaker 2>I think you always have to accept imperfect implementation.

0:54:24.960 --> 0:54:28.120
<v Speaker 1>I think it's all positions are imperfect by nature.

0:54:28.200 --> 0:54:30.800
<v Speaker 2>That's right. The guy who kind of publishes his white

0:54:30.800 --> 0:54:34.320
<v Speaker 2>papers and then says like, oh, well, that's not exactly

0:54:34.400 --> 0:54:36.359
<v Speaker 2>what was in the white paper. Therefore, I, you know,

0:54:36.440 --> 0:54:39.439
<v Speaker 2>disown it. I don't have a lot of time for

0:54:40.120 --> 0:54:41.640
<v Speaker 2>On the flip side, I do think when you're at

0:54:41.680 --> 0:54:44.920
<v Speaker 2>the level of sort of the core concepts of what

0:54:44.960 --> 0:54:48.359
<v Speaker 2>are we trying to do here, especially in this sort

0:54:48.400 --> 0:54:51.960
<v Speaker 2>of situation, you have to get the balance of costs

0:54:52.000 --> 0:54:54.520
<v Speaker 2>and benefits right, Because I think the right way to

0:54:54.600 --> 0:54:58.759
<v Speaker 2>think about this ultimately is we're talking about an investment.

0:54:59.080 --> 0:55:01.759
<v Speaker 2>We're talking about what what kinds of costs should we

0:55:01.800 --> 0:55:04.080
<v Speaker 2>incur in the short run because we think it is

0:55:04.120 --> 0:55:06.960
<v Speaker 2>going to pay dividends in terms of something better in

0:55:06.960 --> 0:55:10.759
<v Speaker 2>the long run. And when you're doing that, and whether

0:55:10.800 --> 0:55:12.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, in the private sector, as well, if you're

0:55:12.560 --> 0:55:16.840
<v Speaker 2>thinking about an investment, whether you keep the costs low

0:55:17.200 --> 0:55:20.520
<v Speaker 2>upfront and whether you deliver those high benefits in the

0:55:20.560 --> 0:55:23.799
<v Speaker 2>long run is what determines whether you're happy with the

0:55:23.800 --> 0:55:26.719
<v Speaker 2>investment or not. And so here I think the right

0:55:26.760 --> 0:55:31.400
<v Speaker 2>way to understand the risk or the concern is that

0:55:32.239 --> 0:55:36.160
<v Speaker 2>if you pursue the policy in a way that adds

0:55:36.160 --> 0:55:39.920
<v Speaker 2>a lot of unnecessary costs upfront, and if you do

0:55:39.960 --> 0:55:42.799
<v Speaker 2>it in a way that does not deliver as many

0:55:42.840 --> 0:55:45.400
<v Speaker 2>benefits in the long run because you don't create the

0:55:45.440 --> 0:55:48.799
<v Speaker 2>certainty and so you don't get the investment, then it's

0:55:48.880 --> 0:55:51.800
<v Speaker 2>just you're not going to be happy with the tradal

0:55:52.520 --> 0:55:54.719
<v Speaker 2>And so I think even the way that Trump administration

0:55:55.080 --> 0:55:59.160
<v Speaker 2>has implemented things so far, you can get some of

0:55:59.160 --> 0:56:02.360
<v Speaker 2>that reshorting, you can get things brought back to the

0:56:02.440 --> 0:56:06.439
<v Speaker 2>United States. But the way that I'm hoping, I hope

0:56:06.440 --> 0:56:08.759
<v Speaker 2>people will think about it, and I'm encouraged to see

0:56:08.760 --> 0:56:13.160
<v Speaker 2>the administration increasingly thinking about it, is to recognize that

0:56:13.520 --> 0:56:15.759
<v Speaker 2>whether or not you're you're happy with the deal at

0:56:15.760 --> 0:56:17.279
<v Speaker 2>the end of the day, whether or not it was

0:56:17.320 --> 0:56:20.719
<v Speaker 2>a good policy to pursue depends on whether you do

0:56:20.760 --> 0:56:23.000
<v Speaker 2>it on a way in a way that keeps those

0:56:23.040 --> 0:56:27.279
<v Speaker 2>costs down and that maximizes those benefits. And so that's

0:56:27.280 --> 0:56:29.279
<v Speaker 2>where that example of the small business is a really

0:56:29.280 --> 0:56:32.880
<v Speaker 2>good one. Can you do this in a way that

0:56:32.880 --> 0:56:36.080
<v Speaker 2>that doesn't cause those sorts of disruptions or at least

0:56:36.080 --> 0:56:40.960
<v Speaker 2>minimizes those disruptions, and you can, and I think we're

0:56:41.000 --> 0:56:43.640
<v Speaker 2>moving toward it, but I think certainly right now we

0:56:43.680 --> 0:56:44.960
<v Speaker 2>are seeing too much disruption.

0:56:46.880 --> 0:56:50.080
<v Speaker 1>How do you measure as an economist, how do you measure?

0:56:49.960 --> 0:56:54.799
<v Speaker 1>There's certain parts of a free trade agreement that are

0:56:54.800 --> 0:56:59.279
<v Speaker 1>as where the benefit is security, which is not necessarily

0:56:59.320 --> 0:57:02.520
<v Speaker 1>a measurable right. You can't put a number on it.

0:57:03.320 --> 0:57:05.960
<v Speaker 1>But look, you know, you know there's there's plenty of

0:57:05.960 --> 0:57:08.759
<v Speaker 1>wars in our past that had been triggered by by

0:57:08.840 --> 0:57:14.759
<v Speaker 1>trade disputes, so this is not an unusual thing. But

0:57:14.880 --> 0:57:20.520
<v Speaker 1>good relations with a country on on the economic front

0:57:20.560 --> 0:57:25.760
<v Speaker 1>can provide important security agreements. So maybe the point is

0:57:25.760 --> 0:57:28.800
<v Speaker 1>is that a trade deficit might be worth it because

0:57:28.800 --> 0:57:32.520
<v Speaker 1>of a security trade off. Right, how do you factor

0:57:32.560 --> 0:57:35.560
<v Speaker 1>that in in into your thinking? Because you know that

0:57:35.680 --> 0:57:38.640
<v Speaker 1>some of that is the motivation for some of the

0:57:38.680 --> 0:57:41.040
<v Speaker 1>trade agreements that we do cut Like you know, I

0:57:41.240 --> 0:57:43.240
<v Speaker 1>take the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. I felt like that

0:57:43.400 --> 0:57:46.640
<v Speaker 1>was one that we escalated, and we accelerated as much

0:57:46.680 --> 0:57:51.040
<v Speaker 1>of trying to make sure Colombia didn't slip. Right. This

0:57:51.240 --> 0:57:56.440
<v Speaker 1>was a democracy that was on the move, coming towards us,

0:57:56.560 --> 0:57:59.520
<v Speaker 1>if you will, right away from its from its from

0:57:59.600 --> 0:58:02.320
<v Speaker 1>its from its drug past and things like that. So

0:58:02.360 --> 0:58:04.760
<v Speaker 1>we were really trying to help them. How do you

0:58:04.800 --> 0:58:08.400
<v Speaker 1>factor that into your equations of trying to come up

0:58:08.440 --> 0:58:10.200
<v Speaker 1>with a fair with fair trade practices.

0:58:11.360 --> 0:58:14.000
<v Speaker 2>It's a great question, but it's funny because I thought

0:58:14.040 --> 0:58:16.800
<v Speaker 2>you were going to go in the exactly opposite direction,

0:58:17.000 --> 0:58:20.200
<v Speaker 2>which is that a lot of the value of security

0:58:20.840 --> 0:58:23.800
<v Speaker 2>for the United States is something that we don't take

0:58:23.840 --> 0:58:27.120
<v Speaker 2>into account when we're doing our economic analyzes. Right that,

0:58:27.520 --> 0:58:30.320
<v Speaker 2>in trying to value all the benefits of the cheap stuff,

0:58:31.040 --> 0:58:36.520
<v Speaker 2>the costs of no longer being able to make essential goods,

0:58:36.680 --> 0:58:37.760
<v Speaker 2>no longer being able to.

0:58:37.800 --> 0:58:39.760
<v Speaker 1>The pandemic was an eye open look. The pandemic I

0:58:39.760 --> 0:58:42.840
<v Speaker 1>think opened some people and more where China could have.

0:58:43.280 --> 0:58:44.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, if they really wanted to make us suffer,

0:58:44.960 --> 0:58:47.160
<v Speaker 1>they could have, right, and they chose not to because

0:58:47.200 --> 0:58:49.040
<v Speaker 1>they were suffering. You know, they had their own issues.

0:58:49.800 --> 0:58:53.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, so there's the sort of resilience point for all

0:58:53.080 --> 0:58:55.640
<v Speaker 2>sorts of goods, and then there's specifically what you do

0:58:55.760 --> 0:58:58.200
<v Speaker 2>to the defense industrial base. You know, we're seeing in

0:58:58.240 --> 0:59:02.600
<v Speaker 2>the Ukraine context, our ability to even manufacture the kinds

0:59:02.640 --> 0:59:06.080
<v Speaker 2>of weapons you know, you need to help support another

0:59:06.160 --> 0:59:10.480
<v Speaker 2>country in a you know, limited land or elsewhere. You

0:59:10.520 --> 0:59:12.640
<v Speaker 2>look at the sort of modeling of how long could

0:59:12.640 --> 0:59:15.440
<v Speaker 2>the US actually sustain a conflict in the Taiwan Straits,

0:59:15.440 --> 0:59:18.240
<v Speaker 2>for instance, what you see is, you know, and you

0:59:18.240 --> 0:59:21.560
<v Speaker 2>look at our ability to build ships or maintain submarines

0:59:21.680 --> 0:59:25.680
<v Speaker 2>or we've hollowed all that out, and none of that

0:59:25.720 --> 0:59:29.880
<v Speaker 2>gets measured in the economic analysis of free trade either.

0:59:30.280 --> 0:59:33.120
<v Speaker 2>So that being said, the point you make is also

0:59:33.120 --> 0:59:35.680
<v Speaker 2>a good one, which is that there's real upside benefit

0:59:35.880 --> 0:59:39.360
<v Speaker 2>to these kinds of trade agreements. And you know, I

0:59:39.440 --> 0:59:41.320
<v Speaker 2>think the two things I would say about it. One

0:59:41.360 --> 0:59:45.120
<v Speaker 2>is I think that's a perfectly reasonable case, but it's

0:59:45.160 --> 0:59:48.000
<v Speaker 2>one that we should acknowledge and break out in the

0:59:48.040 --> 0:59:52.960
<v Speaker 2>analysis that too much of the discussion in recent decades

0:59:53.000 --> 0:59:55.520
<v Speaker 2>has just been Look, this is a win win win,

0:59:55.960 --> 0:59:58.680
<v Speaker 2>like it advances this foreign policy objective that we have,

0:59:59.240 --> 1:00:03.640
<v Speaker 2>but also it's really great for American workers, and if

1:00:03.680 --> 1:00:08.120
<v Speaker 2>that's not actually true, then don't sell it that way.

1:00:08.720 --> 1:00:11.640
<v Speaker 2>If you have a you know, we don't say we're

1:00:11.880 --> 1:00:15.880
<v Speaker 2>going to go to war in this place, but that's okay,

1:00:15.920 --> 1:00:19.840
<v Speaker 2>it's really great for the soldiers too. There's a baseline

1:00:19.920 --> 1:00:23.080
<v Speaker 2>level of honesty that is necessary, among other things, if

1:00:23.080 --> 1:00:27.840
<v Speaker 2>you want to sustain political support for making those kinds

1:00:27.880 --> 1:00:29.840
<v Speaker 2>of trade offs. So if we want to say, look,

1:00:29.840 --> 1:00:32.600
<v Speaker 2>we're actually going to use our economic policy, our trade

1:00:32.600 --> 1:00:36.960
<v Speaker 2>policy to support developing countries that you know, we think

1:00:37.000 --> 1:00:39.400
<v Speaker 2>that that really makes a difference for Columbia, That makes

1:00:39.440 --> 1:00:41.640
<v Speaker 2>a difference from you know, some other country in our

1:00:41.680 --> 1:00:46.480
<v Speaker 2>hemisphere that has real benefits for us. Great, but make

1:00:46.520 --> 1:00:49.520
<v Speaker 2>the case on those terms, and then notice that that

1:00:49.640 --> 1:00:53.360
<v Speaker 2>case doesn't hold up when you're looking at those situations

1:00:53.360 --> 1:00:56.280
<v Speaker 2>where trade is actually causing us problems, which is with

1:00:56.400 --> 1:01:00.720
<v Speaker 2>those other major countries, right, it's not our trade relationship

1:01:00.720 --> 1:01:03.720
<v Speaker 2>with Columbia. Again, putting aside, if they become a way

1:01:03.800 --> 1:01:07.960
<v Speaker 2>for other countries to cheat, that is causing the distress.

1:01:08.360 --> 1:01:12.479
<v Speaker 2>And on the flip side, you can't say I don't think, well, look,

1:01:12.520 --> 1:01:17.840
<v Speaker 2>obviously we have to treat Japan this way because you know, otherwise,

1:01:19.240 --> 1:01:21.320
<v Speaker 2>I'm not sure what the otherwise is. I think the

1:01:21.360 --> 1:01:22.560
<v Speaker 2>reality is that the.

1:01:23.000 --> 1:01:25.200
<v Speaker 1>Well we certainly want. Look, we want Japan and our

1:01:25.240 --> 1:01:28.320
<v Speaker 1>sphere of influence and not China's we want, but you know,

1:01:28.360 --> 1:01:29.480
<v Speaker 1>in our sphere of influence, you.

1:01:29.400 --> 1:01:31.840
<v Speaker 2>Know who else, you know, who else wants Japan in

1:01:31.880 --> 1:01:36.240
<v Speaker 2>our sphere of influence and not China's Japan.

1:01:36.440 --> 1:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>I think they do, but we make it really hard

1:01:40.200 --> 1:01:42.960
<v Speaker 1>for them. I mean, you know, eventually, money, whether we

1:01:43.080 --> 1:01:47.760
<v Speaker 1>like it or not. You know, it's amazing how how

1:01:47.800 --> 1:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the pocket book will change a voter's mind. Just look

1:01:50.960 --> 1:01:53.720
<v Speaker 1>north of the border. Right in a ninety day period,

1:01:53.800 --> 1:01:56.600
<v Speaker 1>we saw what happened north of the border. So you know,

1:01:56.720 --> 1:01:58.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if anything should be seen as permanent

1:01:58.800 --> 1:02:00.920
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to our some of these relationships that

1:02:00.960 --> 1:02:01.160
<v Speaker 1>we have.

1:02:02.280 --> 1:02:05.840
<v Speaker 2>Well, I certainly agree that the relationships aren't permanent, but

1:02:05.920 --> 1:02:09.720
<v Speaker 2>I think that you can step back and assess the

1:02:09.760 --> 1:02:15.040
<v Speaker 2>actual calculations that other countries are facing. And you know,

1:02:15.160 --> 1:02:19.400
<v Speaker 2>I think the United States should treat allies barely and

1:02:19.760 --> 1:02:21.640
<v Speaker 2>transparently and so forth.

1:02:21.760 --> 1:02:23.760
<v Speaker 1>Shouldn't they get a better deal? In your mind? Is

1:02:23.800 --> 1:02:27.120
<v Speaker 1>it should our allies get a better deal than those

1:02:27.200 --> 1:02:30.280
<v Speaker 1>that are either unaligned or adversarial.

1:02:31.120 --> 1:02:36.800
<v Speaker 2>Oh. Absolutely, that's a core premise of I think the

1:02:36.840 --> 1:02:38.800
<v Speaker 2>direction we're headed, and it's right.

1:02:38.600 --> 1:02:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Well, that was I think the frustration at first is

1:02:41.400 --> 1:02:43.800
<v Speaker 1>that is not how the policy was initially rolled out,

1:02:43.880 --> 1:02:46.680
<v Speaker 1>which I think is why so many of our trade

1:02:46.960 --> 1:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>closest trade partners freaked out.

1:02:49.760 --> 1:02:52.400
<v Speaker 2>So I think that's a fair point about the freak out.

1:02:52.480 --> 1:02:54.760
<v Speaker 2>I think it's important to say that in terms of

1:02:54.800 --> 1:02:57.840
<v Speaker 2>where I think the administration is trying to go. And again,

1:02:57.880 --> 1:03:00.360
<v Speaker 2>I think another fair criticism is they haven't been clear

1:03:00.440 --> 1:03:04.520
<v Speaker 2>enough and conveying where they're trying to go. But you know,

1:03:04.720 --> 1:03:08.000
<v Speaker 2>piecing together those comments they do make and the action

1:03:08.120 --> 1:03:12.000
<v Speaker 2>that they've taken, it seems to me that the direction

1:03:12.120 --> 1:03:15.400
<v Speaker 2>that they want to head is one in which there's

1:03:15.480 --> 1:03:18.640
<v Speaker 2>a much better deal for countries that are sort of

1:03:19.160 --> 1:03:22.680
<v Speaker 2>in the US sphere as opposed to those that are not.

1:03:24.000 --> 1:03:26.320
<v Speaker 2>The difference from the past where I think we're really

1:03:26.360 --> 1:03:29.959
<v Speaker 2>departing is that in the past, especially post Cold War,

1:03:31.160 --> 1:03:34.440
<v Speaker 2>we didn't really ask much of anything because we were

1:03:34.480 --> 1:03:38.800
<v Speaker 2>presiding over this liberal world order. Everybody got the full deal, right,

1:03:38.960 --> 1:03:42.160
<v Speaker 2>China got open access to our market just as much

1:03:42.200 --> 1:03:47.080
<v Speaker 2>as Japan did, and what we are starting to shift

1:03:47.080 --> 1:03:49.080
<v Speaker 2>towards world where we say, actually, the US has some

1:03:49.200 --> 1:03:52.320
<v Speaker 2>things that it wants to and those have to be

1:03:52.520 --> 1:03:56.000
<v Speaker 2>fair and reasonable things. But I think the things that

1:03:56.040 --> 1:04:00.000
<v Speaker 2>the Trump administration is gesturing toward are fair and reasonable.

1:04:00.240 --> 1:04:04.400
<v Speaker 2>So take the balance trade point, Yeah, that seems pretty fair.

1:04:04.680 --> 1:04:07.400
<v Speaker 2>The US isn't saying we demand that we now reverse

1:04:07.480 --> 1:04:09.920
<v Speaker 2>things and we get to build up our industry at

1:04:09.920 --> 1:04:13.240
<v Speaker 2>your expense. They're saying, let's have a trading relationship that

1:04:13.400 --> 1:04:16.960
<v Speaker 2>isn't bigger thy neighbor. Let's have one where everybody can

1:04:17.000 --> 1:04:20.000
<v Speaker 2>have a healthy manufacturing sector and trade stuff for stuff,

1:04:20.120 --> 1:04:21.720
<v Speaker 2>and we will hold ourselves to that too.

1:04:22.840 --> 1:04:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Do you accept the premise that the the more trade

1:04:26.760 --> 1:04:29.320
<v Speaker 1>there is across borders, the less chance of war?

1:04:30.920 --> 1:04:34.600
<v Speaker 2>Not necessarily. I think there are certainly situations where that

1:04:34.640 --> 1:04:35.800
<v Speaker 2>can be a healthy thing.

1:04:37.160 --> 1:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>Because I don't let's the essential argument. Critics of this

1:04:39.720 --> 1:04:42.520
<v Speaker 1>are making that, Hey, look at the post World War

1:04:42.560 --> 1:04:47.360
<v Speaker 1>two right to now. You know, yes, there's certainly been

1:04:48.360 --> 1:04:51.200
<v Speaker 1>pockets of up of you know, we've had a war here,

1:04:51.280 --> 1:04:53.680
<v Speaker 1>war there, but we haven't had a global war. Right.

1:04:55.680 --> 1:04:59.720
<v Speaker 1>Can you can you credit more open and for youer

1:04:59.760 --> 1:05:03.000
<v Speaker 1>trade with that, I don't think so.

1:05:03.320 --> 1:05:05.440
<v Speaker 2>I mean, most of that period you're referring to was

1:05:05.520 --> 1:05:09.800
<v Speaker 2>the Cold War, where we didn't have open and free trade.

1:05:09.840 --> 1:05:14.480
<v Speaker 2>Obviously we had two competing blocks, and there was a

1:05:14.560 --> 1:05:18.440
<v Speaker 2>totally different set of security factors in particular that that

1:05:18.520 --> 1:05:23.320
<v Speaker 2>sort of maintained that balance. Then we moved onto the

1:05:23.760 --> 1:05:26.520
<v Speaker 2>post Cold War period where you know, I appreciate your

1:05:26.520 --> 1:05:29.520
<v Speaker 2>sort of casual description of a war here and a

1:05:29.560 --> 1:05:30.080
<v Speaker 2>war there.

1:05:30.600 --> 1:05:32.640
<v Speaker 1>No, and I'm not trying to dismiss the smaller wars,

1:05:32.640 --> 1:05:33.960
<v Speaker 1>but we haven't had a world war.

1:05:34.440 --> 1:05:36.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's hard to it's hard to think of what

1:05:36.320 --> 1:05:38.560
<v Speaker 2>a world war even would look like in a context

1:05:38.600 --> 1:05:42.000
<v Speaker 2>where the US was so much more dominant than any

1:05:42.040 --> 1:05:46.120
<v Speaker 2>other country. We had this period of hegemony and you know,

1:05:46.600 --> 1:05:51.920
<v Speaker 2>kind of the unipolar era was was a very strange moment,

1:05:52.800 --> 1:05:55.720
<v Speaker 2>and it's one that's that's we are moving on from

1:05:55.800 --> 1:05:59.360
<v Speaker 2>as China rises into being a peer competitor. Now. I

1:05:59.360 --> 1:06:01.120
<v Speaker 2>don't think that guarantees we have to have a war

1:06:01.160 --> 1:06:03.520
<v Speaker 2>with China, right, we never really had a war with

1:06:03.640 --> 1:06:07.280
<v Speaker 2>the Soviet Union. But I think you know, again as

1:06:07.320 --> 1:06:09.360
<v Speaker 2>with the claim that like well, the economy is bigger

1:06:09.400 --> 1:06:12.320
<v Speaker 2>so it must be because globalization is good. I think

1:06:12.360 --> 1:06:14.439
<v Speaker 2>the idea that, like, well, we haven't had a world

1:06:14.600 --> 1:06:17.480
<v Speaker 2>war since the nineteen forties, it must be because globalization

1:06:17.640 --> 1:06:22.840
<v Speaker 2>is good is the sort of like comically over simple

1:06:23.240 --> 1:06:26.400
<v Speaker 2>analysis that the exact same people making it.

1:06:26.440 --> 1:06:28.080
<v Speaker 1>We must not be in the internet. You must not

1:06:28.120 --> 1:06:31.280
<v Speaker 1>be in the internet, comically overly simplified arguments or what

1:06:31.360 --> 1:06:32.880
<v Speaker 1>make the internet go for right?

1:06:32.880 --> 1:06:35.360
<v Speaker 2>But this is my point, is that that it is

1:06:35.600 --> 1:06:38.640
<v Speaker 2>the sort of capital v very serious people who are

1:06:38.640 --> 1:06:42.160
<v Speaker 2>making this argument because it happens to prop up this

1:06:42.240 --> 1:06:45.800
<v Speaker 2>ideological preference they had. If they had a different ideological preference,

1:06:46.120 --> 1:06:48.280
<v Speaker 2>they would be laughing this argument out of the room too.

1:06:48.840 --> 1:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, let me go with this because look, I think

1:06:51.760 --> 1:06:54.160
<v Speaker 1>I think many Americans share the goal of yes, we

1:06:54.200 --> 1:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>want you know there. You know, I mean my dad

1:06:56.680 --> 1:07:00.280
<v Speaker 1>grew up in Waterloo, Iowa, and you know Waterloo is

1:07:00.440 --> 1:07:03.000
<v Speaker 1>I don't like it that one of their largest employers

1:07:03.080 --> 1:07:04.920
<v Speaker 1>is a casino now right, It used to be in

1:07:04.920 --> 1:07:08.959
<v Speaker 1>a meatpacking company. John Deere was not far away. John

1:07:08.960 --> 1:07:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Deer probably makes as many tractors in China as they

1:07:10.960 --> 1:07:13.560
<v Speaker 1>do in the United States these days. So I get that.

1:07:13.640 --> 1:07:17.160
<v Speaker 1>And there's a there's I'd like to see that what's realistic?

1:07:17.680 --> 1:07:19.800
<v Speaker 1>Because you talked about all the different things we could

1:07:19.800 --> 1:07:24.240
<v Speaker 1>reindustrialize here, obviously we should prioritize what we plan to

1:07:24.280 --> 1:07:27.600
<v Speaker 1>reindustrialize because we may not even have enough workers to

1:07:27.680 --> 1:07:30.960
<v Speaker 1>bring everything back that maybe some people would like to

1:07:31.000 --> 1:07:35.960
<v Speaker 1>see come back. So be realistic with me here, what's

1:07:36.200 --> 1:07:41.760
<v Speaker 1>viable in reindustrializing in the United States and what probably isn't.

1:07:43.160 --> 1:07:45.880
<v Speaker 2>It's a good question, and it's a place where I

1:07:45.920 --> 1:07:49.320
<v Speaker 2>think ideally we actually do look more to the market.

1:07:50.520 --> 1:07:52.240
<v Speaker 2>You know, this is one of the places where I

1:07:52.280 --> 1:07:57.080
<v Speaker 2>think you still see a really interesting divergence between the

1:07:57.320 --> 1:08:00.200
<v Speaker 2>kind of right of center focus on reindustrialization and the

1:08:00.280 --> 1:08:03.000
<v Speaker 2>left of center focus, because there's obviously a lot of

1:08:03.000 --> 1:08:07.440
<v Speaker 2>commonalities in some of the pushes on these fronts, but

1:08:07.520 --> 1:08:09.280
<v Speaker 2>I think what you see from the left of center

1:08:09.360 --> 1:08:11.680
<v Speaker 2>is much more a sense of, Okay, here's our list

1:08:11.920 --> 1:08:14.360
<v Speaker 2>of the ten things we're going to reindustrialize, and here's

1:08:14.440 --> 1:08:16.160
<v Speaker 2>kind of the program to do each of them.

1:08:16.640 --> 1:08:20.040
<v Speaker 1>Right. Chips would fall into that. Right like that, Well,

1:08:20.080 --> 1:08:21.080
<v Speaker 1>so right is right?

1:08:21.120 --> 1:08:23.000
<v Speaker 2>This is the interesting point. Chips is sort of the

1:08:23.000 --> 1:08:26.320
<v Speaker 2>one exception you've seen thus far where Republicans also, you know,

1:08:26.439 --> 1:08:29.200
<v Speaker 2>is obviously not unanimous, but by partisan.

1:08:29.080 --> 1:08:30.920
<v Speaker 1>It's a national I think there's a lot of national

1:08:30.920 --> 1:08:33.880
<v Speaker 1>security woven into that, right, Yes, so it makes it

1:08:33.880 --> 1:08:36.160
<v Speaker 1>it almost makes it easier to get the bipartisan support.

1:08:36.200 --> 1:08:36.519
<v Speaker 1>That's right.

1:08:36.560 --> 1:08:39.479
<v Speaker 2>There's both national security and there's an economic analysis where

1:08:39.479 --> 1:08:42.120
<v Speaker 2>I don't think anybody doubts that chips are going to

1:08:42.160 --> 1:08:45.920
<v Speaker 2>be very important to the next fifty years. And so

1:08:46.160 --> 1:08:48.280
<v Speaker 2>I think that's what we want to see. Certainly, what

1:08:48.320 --> 1:08:50.200
<v Speaker 2>I want to see is that kind of you know,

1:08:50.200 --> 1:08:54.080
<v Speaker 2>it gets called industrial policy used in a targeted way

1:08:54.280 --> 1:08:56.920
<v Speaker 2>for some things that we really know are important in

1:08:56.920 --> 1:08:59.240
<v Speaker 2>a way that the market won't take into account. So

1:08:59.439 --> 1:09:02.320
<v Speaker 2>chips is example. You now see the same thing with

1:09:02.400 --> 1:09:08.040
<v Speaker 2>ship building. Conveniently enough ships to rhyme with chips. There's

1:09:08.160 --> 1:09:11.240
<v Speaker 2>bipartis in legislation on that too, because again purely from

1:09:11.280 --> 1:09:14.400
<v Speaker 2>a national security perspective, you do need to be able

1:09:14.400 --> 1:09:17.719
<v Speaker 2>to build ships. And so I think we'll see some

1:09:17.720 --> 1:09:20.400
<v Speaker 2>some targeted areas like that where.

1:09:20.120 --> 1:09:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Basically the entire defense industrial complex arguably, you know, you know,

1:09:25.160 --> 1:09:28.080
<v Speaker 1>we should always want that made everything made here as

1:09:28.160 --> 1:09:28.960
<v Speaker 1>much as possible.

1:09:29.600 --> 1:09:32.519
<v Speaker 2>Yes, And and an interesting corollary of that, we just

1:09:32.560 --> 1:09:35.439
<v Speaker 2>did a big project on this, said American Compass, is

1:09:35.479 --> 1:09:37.439
<v Speaker 2>that the idea that you can kind of just protect

1:09:37.479 --> 1:09:41.000
<v Speaker 2>the defense industrial base but not the broader industrial base

1:09:41.120 --> 1:09:44.920
<v Speaker 2>has has proven to be false.

1:09:45.320 --> 1:09:47.400
<v Speaker 1>You don't think you can separate the two, and that

1:09:47.400 --> 1:09:49.759
<v Speaker 1>that's a that might be a mistake because the left.

1:09:50.160 --> 1:09:52.840
<v Speaker 1>What you're arguing here is defense is probably one of

1:09:52.840 --> 1:09:55.800
<v Speaker 1>those areas whatever. But yes, let's do that, right, But

1:09:55.880 --> 1:09:59.120
<v Speaker 1>you're saying you don't think you can disaggregate the defense

1:09:59.160 --> 1:10:02.040
<v Speaker 1>industrial base from the from the commercial industrial base.

1:10:02.479 --> 1:10:05.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's right. And ultimately, what we've seen is that

1:10:05.439 --> 1:10:07.920
<v Speaker 2>when you try to, you end up with this set

1:10:07.920 --> 1:10:10.800
<v Speaker 2>of companies that isn't being asked to actually compete in

1:10:10.840 --> 1:10:13.760
<v Speaker 2>the market at all. They are only right and so

1:10:13.800 --> 1:10:14.640
<v Speaker 2>the irony.

1:10:14.400 --> 1:10:17.479
<v Speaker 1>Is, trust me, this is my beef with Boeing, right,

1:10:17.560 --> 1:10:19.960
<v Speaker 1>you know what's you know, I think the reason why

1:10:20.000 --> 1:10:25.280
<v Speaker 1>Boeing is producing has uneven products, right, Some products work well,

1:10:25.360 --> 1:10:28.400
<v Speaker 1>some don't. The lack of competition, right. You know, when

1:10:28.439 --> 1:10:29.880
<v Speaker 1>I was growing up, I think I'm a little bit

1:10:29.920 --> 1:10:31.960
<v Speaker 1>older than you are. You know, we have three or

1:10:31.960 --> 1:10:35.000
<v Speaker 1>four different plane manufacturers and they did have to compete

1:10:35.040 --> 1:10:38.559
<v Speaker 1>for defense contracts and the Delta Airlines contract, right, yes,

1:10:38.760 --> 1:10:42.759
<v Speaker 1>And now there's you know there's commercially, there's Boeing an airbus, okay,

1:10:43.560 --> 1:10:46.599
<v Speaker 1>but on some of these defense things, and I think

1:10:46.640 --> 1:10:49.439
<v Speaker 1>Boeing has been harmed by lack of competition, right, I

1:10:49.439 --> 1:10:51.519
<v Speaker 1>think Boeing isn't as good because.

1:10:51.320 --> 1:10:54.200
<v Speaker 2>Of Yes, totally agree. And so I think if if

1:10:54.280 --> 1:10:57.920
<v Speaker 2>you if you buy into the Trump administration vision of

1:10:57.960 --> 1:10:59.680
<v Speaker 2>where we're trying to go, which is we want to

1:10:59.680 --> 1:11:04.400
<v Speaker 2>have an economic and security alliance. China is out. Countries

1:11:04.439 --> 1:11:08.240
<v Speaker 2>that want to align with China are out, but market democracies,

1:11:08.320 --> 1:11:12.599
<v Speaker 2>countries that would prefer to be with us to accept

1:11:12.600 --> 1:11:17.120
<v Speaker 2>a commitment to balance trade, probably more security spending, except

1:11:17.120 --> 1:11:20.280
<v Speaker 2>that they too are going to keep China out. That's

1:11:20.320 --> 1:11:24.599
<v Speaker 2>a very big, healthy, robust market. And if we get

1:11:24.600 --> 1:11:27.320
<v Speaker 2>everybody to agree in that context that we're going.

1:11:27.240 --> 1:11:31.400
<v Speaker 1>Back to India specifically, is what makes India swing country.

1:11:31.040 --> 1:11:34.000
<v Speaker 2>Here, by the way, that's right. And you know, both

1:11:34.040 --> 1:11:39.000
<v Speaker 2>India and Japan are countries that especially strongly would like

1:11:39.080 --> 1:11:44.360
<v Speaker 2>to not be in the Chinese sphere. And so I

1:11:44.360 --> 1:11:46.200
<v Speaker 2>think that's actly right. If you know you have the

1:11:46.240 --> 1:11:50.280
<v Speaker 2>North American core, you have Japan, Korea, India. I think

1:11:50.320 --> 1:11:54.400
<v Speaker 2>you certainly have the Anglo sphere, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand,

1:11:55.320 --> 1:11:57.880
<v Speaker 2>Europe you'd mentioned earlier. I think is a much more

1:11:57.880 --> 1:12:01.080
<v Speaker 2>interesting case. We could do a whole separate discussion just

1:12:01.200 --> 1:12:05.559
<v Speaker 2>about that. But if that is sort of your market

1:12:05.640 --> 1:12:08.880
<v Speaker 2>and you have a commitment within that market to balance trade,

1:12:09.600 --> 1:12:12.840
<v Speaker 2>at that point, I think you can mostly say, then

1:12:12.880 --> 1:12:15.040
<v Speaker 2>go ahead, invest where you want to invest if there

1:12:15.080 --> 1:12:16.160
<v Speaker 2>are things that are better made.

1:12:16.200 --> 1:12:19.160
<v Speaker 1>So we may not re industrialize as that much here,

1:12:20.000 --> 1:12:25.439
<v Speaker 1>but we may limit where companies do manufacture outside our

1:12:25.439 --> 1:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>sphere as long as they're manufacturing with in friendly territory essentially.

1:12:29.040 --> 1:12:31.599
<v Speaker 2>Right, Well, you know, getting to balance trade would mean

1:12:31.680 --> 1:12:35.040
<v Speaker 2>massive reindustrialization. You know, if we have a trillion dollar

1:12:35.080 --> 1:12:38.000
<v Speaker 2>a year trade depsit now you're talking about it, trillion

1:12:38.040 --> 1:12:42.439
<v Speaker 2>dollars a year more production to level that out.

1:12:42.439 --> 1:12:43.800
<v Speaker 1>How long do you think it's going to take us

1:12:44.080 --> 1:12:45.800
<v Speaker 1>to do that? I mean, is that a ten year

1:12:45.840 --> 1:12:49.200
<v Speaker 1>project in your and that's realistic? Is ten years? Right?

1:12:49.200 --> 1:12:52.599
<v Speaker 1>That's a that is a lot to ask the American consumer.

1:12:54.320 --> 1:12:56.599
<v Speaker 2>It is a lot to ask. On the other hand,

1:12:56.600 --> 1:12:59.240
<v Speaker 2>I would say ten years is not very long at all.

1:13:00.000 --> 1:13:01.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, keep in mind, to those of us that

1:13:01.720 --> 1:13:04.280
<v Speaker 1>studied numbers, yes I agree with you, but the real

1:13:04.320 --> 1:13:05.840
<v Speaker 1>world it's it's tough.

1:13:06.320 --> 1:13:08.679
<v Speaker 2>I mean even keep in mind, ten years ago wasn't

1:13:08.800 --> 1:13:11.920
<v Speaker 2>nineteen ninety five. Ten years ago was twenty fifteen. Right,

1:13:12.040 --> 1:13:15.280
<v Speaker 2>if when Donald Trump had first come down the Golden Escalator,

1:13:15.840 --> 1:13:18.200
<v Speaker 2>we were actually starting in on this project, we would

1:13:18.240 --> 1:13:20.840
<v Speaker 2>already be at the end of the ten years and

1:13:20.920 --> 1:13:21.840
<v Speaker 2>so I think.

1:13:21.800 --> 1:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Well, some would argue TPP could have accelerated the isolation

1:13:25.040 --> 1:13:28.280
<v Speaker 1>of China, but I don't want to start that debate.

1:13:29.200 --> 1:13:30.719
<v Speaker 2>We'll do a whole other one on yours.

1:13:30.760 --> 1:13:32.800
<v Speaker 1>I could do that that. I mean, I look at

1:13:32.840 --> 1:13:36.519
<v Speaker 1>TPP as one of the great mistakes of what happens

1:13:36.560 --> 1:13:42.480
<v Speaker 1>when populism hijacks both political parties. But you know, I'm

1:13:43.280 --> 1:13:47.000
<v Speaker 1>I always saw TPP, not as a trade agreement, as

1:13:47.040 --> 1:13:49.680
<v Speaker 1>a check on China, and I just think we blew it.

1:13:50.120 --> 1:13:53.800
<v Speaker 2>I completely agree with that piece of the argument. I

1:13:53.800 --> 1:13:58.040
<v Speaker 2>think the counter argument is that TPP would have sort

1:13:58.080 --> 1:14:04.560
<v Speaker 2>of solidified the imbalance within the remaining block. That is,

1:14:04.600 --> 1:14:08.000
<v Speaker 2>it would have entirely validated the approach of a Japan

1:14:08.120 --> 1:14:15.599
<v Speaker 2>of a Korea to use trading agreements in a way

1:14:15.640 --> 1:14:19.840
<v Speaker 2>that benefited their manufacturers at the expense of American producers.

1:14:20.680 --> 1:14:24.960
<v Speaker 2>So again, last you said, very much more difficult conversation,

1:14:25.120 --> 1:14:26.320
<v Speaker 2>I think, and.

1:14:26.240 --> 1:14:28.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm well aware of time here. I've taken up a

1:14:28.080 --> 1:14:31.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of it. Well says another forty five minutes. That's right.

1:14:31.080 --> 1:14:33.800
<v Speaker 2>So just to wrap up maybe on to just on

1:14:33.840 --> 1:14:36.519
<v Speaker 2>this point, you know, is ten years a long time, Yes,

1:14:36.560 --> 1:14:40.080
<v Speaker 2>it's a long time. You know. The chips is a

1:14:40.080 --> 1:14:43.360
<v Speaker 2>great example where we started back in twenty twenty with

1:14:43.439 --> 1:14:46.720
<v Speaker 2>the idea of the legislation for what became chips and

1:14:46.760 --> 1:14:49.679
<v Speaker 2>we are on track to actually, you know, we're just starting.

1:14:49.720 --> 1:14:52.759
<v Speaker 2>Things are coming online now over a ten year window

1:14:52.840 --> 1:14:55.639
<v Speaker 2>to really have rebuilt a chips industry in this country

1:14:56.600 --> 1:14:59.719
<v Speaker 2>in a way that thus far consumers haven't been bothered

1:14:59.720 --> 1:15:00.360
<v Speaker 2>by a at all.

1:15:01.000 --> 1:15:02.800
<v Speaker 1>And so if you if you do things in a way,

1:15:02.800 --> 1:15:04.640
<v Speaker 1>but it didn't end up punishing China the way we

1:15:04.680 --> 1:15:07.720
<v Speaker 1>thought it would China. You know, it's you know what

1:15:07.800 --> 1:15:09.879
<v Speaker 1>is it? Necessity is the mother of all innovation.

1:15:11.160 --> 1:15:13.559
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think that's an important point actually, and it

1:15:13.600 --> 1:15:16.280
<v Speaker 2>goes to the current conflict we have with China. Even

1:15:16.320 --> 1:15:19.680
<v Speaker 2>just on these current tariffs, which isn't especially constructive, I

1:15:19.680 --> 1:15:22.240
<v Speaker 2>would say on any side, which is that I don't

1:15:22.240 --> 1:15:24.680
<v Speaker 2>think it's practical for the long term view to be that,

1:15:25.320 --> 1:15:27.320
<v Speaker 2>you know, the US is going to pursue a policy

1:15:27.360 --> 1:15:31.000
<v Speaker 2>that somehow you know, holds China down. China is going

1:15:31.000 --> 1:15:34.200
<v Speaker 2>to develop and be successful in all sorts of respects.

1:15:35.600 --> 1:15:39.320
<v Speaker 2>The US needs to focus on addressing its own problems

1:15:39.400 --> 1:15:41.280
<v Speaker 2>in a lot of ways, I would say. And so,

1:15:42.360 --> 1:15:43.960
<v Speaker 2>whether it is in chips, whether it's in some of

1:15:44.040 --> 1:15:48.479
<v Speaker 2>these other areas, whether it's just an investment generally, if

1:15:48.479 --> 1:15:52.599
<v Speaker 2>we can get back on a pathway to reindustrializing, and

1:15:52.640 --> 1:15:55.440
<v Speaker 2>we can do it a way where the disruptions are manageable,

1:15:55.560 --> 1:15:56.720
<v Speaker 2>and we can do it a way where we get

1:15:56.720 --> 1:16:00.000
<v Speaker 2>to start seeing the benefits, I think that's I think

1:16:00.160 --> 1:16:01.599
<v Speaker 2>that's a very popular project.

1:16:02.680 --> 1:16:05.200
<v Speaker 1>Aar and I've really enjoyed this conversation. And I didn't

1:16:05.200 --> 1:16:09.160
<v Speaker 1>even get to because I know you're also one of

1:16:09.160 --> 1:16:13.800
<v Speaker 1>the folks that it's an advocate of of Whether you

1:16:13.840 --> 1:16:16.160
<v Speaker 1>call it the baby bonus, childcare tax credit, you know,

1:16:16.160 --> 1:16:20.120
<v Speaker 1>there's different names for it, but something to help families,

1:16:20.120 --> 1:16:24.760
<v Speaker 1>to help young families. There's some fascinating policies that I think,

1:16:25.479 --> 1:16:29.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, don't fit into the conventional left right argument

1:16:29.439 --> 1:16:32.120
<v Speaker 1>that you come down on. And I just, frankly, I

1:16:32.160 --> 1:16:35.280
<v Speaker 1>love having those conversations, and so I hope to have

1:16:35.320 --> 1:16:35.679
<v Speaker 1>you back.

1:16:36.160 --> 1:16:38.120
<v Speaker 2>I would love it. This was great, Thank you so much.

1:16:44.600 --> 1:16:46.640
<v Speaker 1>All right, I hope you have a better understanding of

1:16:46.960 --> 1:16:50.160
<v Speaker 1>the of what this tariff plan could have looked like.

1:16:51.760 --> 1:16:54.400
<v Speaker 1>And we'll see if if you see a course correction

1:16:55.800 --> 1:16:58.240
<v Speaker 1>or seem to think that we were in the middle

1:16:58.280 --> 1:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>of a course correction here and that perhaps not quite

1:17:02.160 --> 1:17:07.439
<v Speaker 1>a do over, but perhaps the pullback. Now, let's see

1:17:07.439 --> 1:17:10.320
<v Speaker 1>how all this goes. Does it give him an opportunity

1:17:11.320 --> 1:17:14.920
<v Speaker 1>to do this in a more methodical way that maybe

1:17:15.040 --> 1:17:19.519
<v Speaker 1>is slower in the implementation of the terrorists themselves, but

1:17:19.640 --> 1:17:24.960
<v Speaker 1>actually brings business and brings the public along with I'm skeptical.

1:17:26.040 --> 1:17:28.000
<v Speaker 1>One thing Donald Trump doesn't like to do is admit

1:17:28.080 --> 1:17:32.000
<v Speaker 1>that he made a mistake. And he's been sort of

1:17:32.000 --> 1:17:34.639
<v Speaker 1>playing whack a mole on this tariff business for some time.

1:17:34.720 --> 1:17:37.720
<v Speaker 1>All Right, let me get you a few questions here,

1:17:37.760 --> 1:17:43.160
<v Speaker 1>little ask Chuck, Ask Chuck. All right. This first question

1:17:43.200 --> 1:17:46.439
<v Speaker 1>comes from Sarah and she writes, it feels like the

1:17:46.439 --> 1:17:49.280
<v Speaker 1>guardrails of the executive branch have weakened, especially after the

1:17:49.320 --> 1:17:54.280
<v Speaker 1>recent immunity ruling and various was it always this fragile? Also,

1:17:54.320 --> 1:17:56.880
<v Speaker 1>what's your take on the rise of Resistance two point zero,

1:17:56.880 --> 1:17:59.040
<v Speaker 1>whether it has real staying power? And then, on a

1:17:59.080 --> 1:18:01.000
<v Speaker 1>lighter note, do you think Congress will ever address the

1:18:01.080 --> 1:18:06.080
<v Speaker 1>chaos of the NCAA transfer portal? Love all of those questions. Look,

1:18:06.960 --> 1:18:09.320
<v Speaker 1>you've heard me rail about the executive, the power of

1:18:09.360 --> 1:18:14.160
<v Speaker 1>the executive branch. Ultimately, the courts are begging Congress to

1:18:14.360 --> 1:18:19.080
<v Speaker 1>basically flex its muscles. I can't tell you if you

1:18:19.360 --> 1:18:23.840
<v Speaker 1>go look at any John Roberts opinion, He in particular,

1:18:25.280 --> 1:18:29.559
<v Speaker 1>he said, seems to reluctantly side with even though he's

1:18:29.600 --> 1:18:32.400
<v Speaker 1>somebody that seems to always be in favor of giving

1:18:32.439 --> 1:18:36.440
<v Speaker 1>more power to the executive or at least when in doubt,

1:18:36.880 --> 1:18:42.519
<v Speaker 1>siding with the executive. He has been trying to remind

1:18:42.640 --> 1:18:45.080
<v Speaker 1>Congress that if you know, they have a role here,

1:18:45.120 --> 1:18:48.640
<v Speaker 1>if they choose to use it, if they choose to engage,

1:18:49.840 --> 1:18:52.120
<v Speaker 1>And that's one of the questions I have. I'm a

1:18:52.160 --> 1:18:56.120
<v Speaker 1>believer that everything is cyclical in American politics, and if

1:18:56.160 --> 1:19:00.960
<v Speaker 1>you look in presidential elections. You know, we regularly pick

1:19:01.320 --> 1:19:05.439
<v Speaker 1>a president who with the trait that we that you know,

1:19:05.479 --> 1:19:08.439
<v Speaker 1>we pick a new president with a character trait that

1:19:08.479 --> 1:19:11.400
<v Speaker 1>we think the last president was missing. Well, I think

1:19:11.439 --> 1:19:14.679
<v Speaker 1>one of the other cycles we could go into after

1:19:14.840 --> 1:19:17.040
<v Speaker 1>the you know, I think there's a lot of exhaustion

1:19:17.200 --> 1:19:21.639
<v Speaker 1>from the from the from from giving so much power

1:19:21.640 --> 1:19:24.920
<v Speaker 1>to the executive branch, that we may get a Congress

1:19:25.040 --> 1:19:29.200
<v Speaker 1>that will finally, at some point, a bipartisan Congress that decides,

1:19:29.240 --> 1:19:32.120
<v Speaker 1>you know what, let me go reread the Constitution and

1:19:32.160 --> 1:19:38.160
<v Speaker 1>go look at Article one and strengthen Congress's role on everything.

1:19:38.840 --> 1:19:41.120
<v Speaker 1>Especially with the way these tariffs have gone. It could

1:19:41.200 --> 1:19:44.000
<v Speaker 1>be that tariffs is finally the straw that that sort

1:19:44.000 --> 1:19:48.240
<v Speaker 1>of breaks the legislative back of Congress and finally gets

1:19:48.680 --> 1:19:52.360
<v Speaker 1>members of Congress to sober up and take back control

1:19:52.560 --> 1:19:55.439
<v Speaker 1>of the power that they already have. All they have

1:19:55.520 --> 1:19:59.519
<v Speaker 1>to do is actually stop handing emergency powers over to

1:19:59.560 --> 1:20:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the president. And see, you know, whenever they can't decide,

1:20:02.360 --> 1:20:05.320
<v Speaker 1>it seemed they kick the can to the presidency. And

1:20:05.320 --> 1:20:09.360
<v Speaker 1>this is, like I said, you can really this arguably

1:20:09.439 --> 1:20:13.360
<v Speaker 1>began when all this trade authority was handed to the

1:20:13.360 --> 1:20:17.240
<v Speaker 1>presidency in the early nineties both the Bush and Clinton.

1:20:17.520 --> 1:20:21.640
<v Speaker 1>Then nine to eleven happens and more executive authority was

1:20:21.640 --> 1:20:25.720
<v Speaker 1>handed to them by Congress, and then Democratic Congress gave

1:20:25.720 --> 1:20:28.679
<v Speaker 1>it to Obama, Republican Congress gave more power to Trump,

1:20:29.520 --> 1:20:31.720
<v Speaker 1>and we've seen it go over and over. This has

1:20:31.800 --> 1:20:36.719
<v Speaker 1>been a now quarter century of this. At some point

1:20:36.880 --> 1:20:39.479
<v Speaker 1>there will be a movement of congressional leaders in a

1:20:39.479 --> 1:20:42.760
<v Speaker 1>bipartisan basis that I think shifts this back. As far

1:20:42.760 --> 1:20:45.160
<v Speaker 1>as your other question about resistance two point zero, Look,

1:20:45.200 --> 1:20:47.040
<v Speaker 1>I think we're going to see a thousand flowers balloon.

1:20:47.560 --> 1:20:49.360
<v Speaker 1>I do think you're going to have some that's going

1:20:49.439 --> 1:20:54.400
<v Speaker 1>to be extra resistancy, and you'll see the protest, and

1:20:54.479 --> 1:20:57.519
<v Speaker 1>you'll probably see Bernie and AOC sticking to that world.

1:20:57.800 --> 1:21:00.960
<v Speaker 1>Corey Booker, I think is certainly a stoutdblishing himself as

1:21:01.000 --> 1:21:05.160
<v Speaker 1>more of a resistance Democrat. Ditto with Chris Murphy. But

1:21:05.200 --> 1:21:07.320
<v Speaker 1>then you got your Gretchen wet Merger or Andy Basheer's,

1:21:08.040 --> 1:21:09.920
<v Speaker 1>and then I got like Pete Bodagich, who I think

1:21:10.080 --> 1:21:12.680
<v Speaker 1>believes his brand is not a resistance brand, that his

1:21:12.760 --> 1:21:17.479
<v Speaker 1>brand is some way of a new kind of politics brand.

1:21:18.800 --> 1:21:22.679
<v Speaker 1>Does the resistance get strong enough that it spooks those

1:21:22.680 --> 1:21:26.280
<v Speaker 1>who are trying to be more unifiers from pursuing that message,

1:21:26.920 --> 1:21:30.800
<v Speaker 1>or or is there an appetite even inside the Democratic

1:21:30.840 --> 1:21:35.400
<v Speaker 1>Party for the type of nominee that is that is,

1:21:35.720 --> 1:21:39.799
<v Speaker 1>you know, less antagonistic and a little bit more unifying.

1:21:40.479 --> 1:21:42.880
<v Speaker 1>We'll see. As for the NCAA, Look, I think it's

1:21:42.920 --> 1:21:48.080
<v Speaker 1>inevitable Congress is going to get involved. Universities get way

1:21:48.120 --> 1:21:50.640
<v Speaker 1>too many too much federal funds for there not to

1:21:50.760 --> 1:21:56.439
<v Speaker 1>be a for there not to be a technical reason

1:21:56.760 --> 1:22:00.120
<v Speaker 1>for the federal government to insert itself. But a lot

1:22:00.120 --> 1:22:02.720
<v Speaker 1>of members of Congress, you know, this college sports is

1:22:02.760 --> 1:22:05.799
<v Speaker 1>parochial to them. You know, Mitch McConnell got very involved

1:22:05.840 --> 1:22:08.920
<v Speaker 1>in getting Louisville into a major conference. For the longest

1:22:08.920 --> 1:22:11.400
<v Speaker 1>time Louisville was not in a major conference. He tried

1:22:11.439 --> 1:22:13.160
<v Speaker 1>really hard to force the Big twelve to take him,

1:22:13.200 --> 1:22:16.280
<v Speaker 1>and eventually he seemed to get the ACC to do

1:22:16.400 --> 1:22:19.519
<v Speaker 1>that so plenty. Mark Warner, when he was governor of Virginia,

1:22:20.160 --> 1:22:25.000
<v Speaker 1>basically put a you know, hijacked the the Big East

1:22:25.120 --> 1:22:29.200
<v Speaker 1>breakup where Miami, Boston College, and Syracuse We're going to

1:22:29.200 --> 1:22:32.879
<v Speaker 1>go to the ACC. And he basically forced the University

1:22:32.920 --> 1:22:35.880
<v Speaker 1>of Virginia to veto that move unless Virginia Tech were

1:22:35.920 --> 1:22:39.880
<v Speaker 1>also brought aboard. So the point is it's good politics

1:22:40.000 --> 1:22:43.719
<v Speaker 1>to protect your university from something, you know, from getting

1:22:43.760 --> 1:22:48.240
<v Speaker 1>them sidelined, particularly in sports. So the point is it's

1:22:48.320 --> 1:22:51.040
<v Speaker 1>inevitable the Congress is going to get involved into the

1:22:51.240 --> 1:22:54.800
<v Speaker 1>NCAA mess. The question is when does that happen, not

1:22:55.200 --> 1:22:57.400
<v Speaker 1>if it happened. Sarah, all right, I'm going to do

1:22:57.479 --> 1:22:59.920
<v Speaker 1>one more question. I've gone long, but this was one

1:23:00.000 --> 1:23:02.479
<v Speaker 1>about the media, comes from Jeff Polney says, does the

1:23:02.560 --> 1:23:05.720
<v Speaker 1>media go too deep or far back into the backgrounds

1:23:05.720 --> 1:23:09.280
<v Speaker 1>of political candidates and department nominees, thus causing quote normal

1:23:09.360 --> 1:23:11.840
<v Speaker 1>people to avoid public service? Do we really need to

1:23:11.920 --> 1:23:14.400
<v Speaker 1>know the high school nerdiness or that they drank in

1:23:14.520 --> 1:23:17.639
<v Speaker 1>excess to excess in college if those are no longer

1:23:18.160 --> 1:23:21.519
<v Speaker 1>issues with a person, Look, the answer, Jeff is I

1:23:21.600 --> 1:23:26.560
<v Speaker 1>agree with you. You know, I do think one of

1:23:26.640 --> 1:23:29.000
<v Speaker 1>the one of the things that I feel like has

1:23:29.120 --> 1:23:36.559
<v Speaker 1>changed is that after you know, every we sort of overcorrect, right.

1:23:37.120 --> 1:23:40.240
<v Speaker 1>So for the longest time, men in power who were

1:23:40.280 --> 1:23:43.680
<v Speaker 1>taking advantage of women were just not getting punished, right,

1:23:43.800 --> 1:23:47.120
<v Speaker 1>And so then we went and said no, enough of this, right,

1:23:47.240 --> 1:23:51.720
<v Speaker 1>whether it's Harvey Weinstein, et cetera. Now it seems as

1:23:51.760 --> 1:23:53.840
<v Speaker 1>if our culture has decided, all right, did we over

1:23:54.040 --> 1:23:58.439
<v Speaker 1>cancel people? Did we cancel people too quickly? So you're

1:23:58.439 --> 1:24:00.920
<v Speaker 1>starting to see a pull back there. We're probably going

1:24:01.000 --> 1:24:03.519
<v Speaker 1>to see an overcorrection now it's too lenient, We'll probably

1:24:03.960 --> 1:24:06.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, I don't think the public wanted, you know,

1:24:06.600 --> 1:24:09.840
<v Speaker 1>sort of the the the culture of Pete hegseeth either

1:24:09.920 --> 1:24:12.839
<v Speaker 1>and how and how he thinks about women in combat

1:24:12.920 --> 1:24:18.880
<v Speaker 1>and women and in leadership roles. But I think the

1:24:19.080 --> 1:24:21.160
<v Speaker 1>fair point that you have is that, look, when you

1:24:21.240 --> 1:24:24.040
<v Speaker 1>have a democracy, it's of the people, and all humans

1:24:24.040 --> 1:24:27.479
<v Speaker 1>are flawed, I know plenty. And I always joke one

1:24:27.479 --> 1:24:28.920
<v Speaker 1>of the reasons why I'd never want to run for

1:24:29.000 --> 1:24:31.080
<v Speaker 1>office is that I don't I don't want that kind

1:24:31.120 --> 1:24:32.439
<v Speaker 1>of scrutiny, and I don't want to do that to

1:24:32.560 --> 1:24:35.720
<v Speaker 1>my family. It's not fair to my family to get

1:24:35.800 --> 1:24:39.040
<v Speaker 1>that kind of scrutiny. And that's a bummer, right that

1:24:39.400 --> 1:24:41.559
<v Speaker 1>That's what you have to think about. You know, when

1:24:41.600 --> 1:24:43.760
<v Speaker 1>you run for office, you're it's just not you who

1:24:43.840 --> 1:24:46.880
<v Speaker 1>you're putting out there. Your kids could become targets. Your

1:24:47.280 --> 1:24:50.759
<v Speaker 1>parents can become targets if they're still alive, aunts and uncles,

1:24:50.920 --> 1:24:56.439
<v Speaker 1>colleagues at your work. So I would say that social

1:24:56.479 --> 1:25:00.960
<v Speaker 1>media has certainly weaponized personal biography in a way that

1:25:01.160 --> 1:25:06.560
<v Speaker 1>is ugly, and that is likely why we have the

1:25:06.640 --> 1:25:09.000
<v Speaker 1>people who are willing to run for Congress right now.

1:25:09.080 --> 1:25:12.479
<v Speaker 1>Right you sort of get what what the culture allows.

1:25:13.320 --> 1:25:17.560
<v Speaker 1>And so if you if the quote normies don't want that,

1:25:18.000 --> 1:25:21.320
<v Speaker 1>and the non normies are like, I don't care, let's

1:25:21.560 --> 1:25:23.559
<v Speaker 1>you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna be who I am,

1:25:23.680 --> 1:25:26.400
<v Speaker 1>and you know, whether that's a Marjorie Taylor Green or

1:25:27.040 --> 1:25:29.000
<v Speaker 1>or somebody else that you have as your avatar for

1:25:29.120 --> 1:25:33.479
<v Speaker 1>that for that kind of candidate. Yeah, you know, I

1:25:33.720 --> 1:25:36.680
<v Speaker 1>I do think that. But here's the problem with the

1:25:36.760 --> 1:25:40.919
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote the media. I think I think responsible journalists

1:25:41.160 --> 1:25:44.600
<v Speaker 1>do have lines they won't cross. The problem is, you know,

1:25:44.720 --> 1:25:47.880
<v Speaker 1>with oppo research these days, if somebody wants to politically

1:25:48.400 --> 1:25:52.280
<v Speaker 1>try to kill a nominee using using you know, some

1:25:52.520 --> 1:25:56.280
<v Speaker 1>ugly stuff in their background or with their family, even

1:25:56.320 --> 1:25:59.160
<v Speaker 1>if a mainstream journalist says I'm not I'm not I'm

1:25:59.200 --> 1:26:01.840
<v Speaker 1>not going to troll in that garbage. There's always some

1:26:02.280 --> 1:26:05.519
<v Speaker 1>influencer who's willing to do it. And now that we

1:26:05.680 --> 1:26:08.160
<v Speaker 1>have such you know that there is there is such

1:26:08.200 --> 1:26:11.280
<v Speaker 1>a culture that rewards this. You know, it's gonna it's

1:26:11.680 --> 1:26:16.160
<v Speaker 1>it's gonna be up to those in power to decide

1:26:16.200 --> 1:26:20.280
<v Speaker 1>that they're not going to allow allow that kind of

1:26:20.400 --> 1:26:23.600
<v Speaker 1>politics to win or the voters to do that. And

1:26:23.800 --> 1:26:26.559
<v Speaker 1>you know it's you know, I do believe these things.

1:26:26.680 --> 1:26:29.479
<v Speaker 1>Over time, the culture will reject it and will decide,

1:26:29.760 --> 1:26:32.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, we don't care anymore. There was a time

1:26:32.200 --> 1:26:37.280
<v Speaker 1>where the public cared if public officials smoked pot. Then

1:26:37.360 --> 1:26:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Bill Clinton said I, you know, I did it, but

1:26:39.360 --> 1:26:41.720
<v Speaker 1>I didn't Inhale, and they were like, okay. There was

1:26:41.800 --> 1:26:43.680
<v Speaker 1>a time Gary Hart was sort of forced out of

1:26:43.720 --> 1:26:47.639
<v Speaker 1>politics because of because he had an affair. Bill Clinton

1:26:48.200 --> 1:26:51.960
<v Speaker 1>got caught having an affair and people rallied around his defense.

1:26:52.000 --> 1:26:54.479
<v Speaker 1>And now you've got Donald Trump where we've decided that

1:26:55.439 --> 1:26:59.040
<v Speaker 1>personal character is even less of a of a of

1:26:59.120 --> 1:27:05.000
<v Speaker 1>a of a criteria to be president. So I do

1:27:05.200 --> 1:27:08.200
<v Speaker 1>think in some ways culture dictates this more than anything.

1:27:08.880 --> 1:27:12.880
<v Speaker 1>So you know, I wonder if now that we've gotten

1:27:12.960 --> 1:27:16.479
<v Speaker 1>over this sort of over canceling under canceling all of

1:27:16.560 --> 1:27:19.719
<v Speaker 1>this business. Do we see a surge of normal people

1:27:20.320 --> 1:27:24.759
<v Speaker 1>suddenly come into the political system running for office that's

1:27:27.320 --> 1:27:33.080
<v Speaker 1>that is neither sort of outliers in character, and maybe

1:27:33.200 --> 1:27:36.240
<v Speaker 1>they're a little more comfortable saying, hey, that's none of

1:27:36.280 --> 1:27:39.040
<v Speaker 1>your business, or leave my family alone. And for the

1:27:39.120 --> 1:27:42.439
<v Speaker 1>most part, people will do that. So, like I said,

1:27:42.680 --> 1:27:45.800
<v Speaker 1>I think this stuff cyclical. I'd like to think we're

1:27:45.840 --> 1:27:48.120
<v Speaker 1>going to get back to some sort of equilibrium that

1:27:48.240 --> 1:27:53.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe we realize, look, is the person qualified and do

1:27:53.680 --> 1:27:55.720
<v Speaker 1>they have the character and temperament to do the job.

1:27:56.360 --> 1:28:00.160
<v Speaker 1>Ultimately those should be you know, character and temper men

1:28:00.160 --> 1:28:02.439
<v Speaker 1>are a big deal to me, and in fact, many

1:28:02.520 --> 1:28:05.639
<v Speaker 1>times I vote as much on character and temperament as

1:28:05.680 --> 1:28:09.680
<v Speaker 1>I do on substance or ideology, because you know, give

1:28:09.720 --> 1:28:12.280
<v Speaker 1>me somebody with high character, even if I disagree with them,

1:28:12.400 --> 1:28:17.320
<v Speaker 1>and ultimately I know I'm going to be okay. Give

1:28:17.400 --> 1:28:19.800
<v Speaker 1>me somebody with low character who I may think I

1:28:19.920 --> 1:28:22.360
<v Speaker 1>agree with all the time, and that makes me nervous

1:28:22.960 --> 1:28:25.680
<v Speaker 1>because what are they willing to do in order to

1:28:25.800 --> 1:28:29.240
<v Speaker 1>keep power or enact power? So ultimately, I'm a person

1:28:29.280 --> 1:28:33.880
<v Speaker 1>who believes character and temperament should be arguably the number

1:28:33.960 --> 1:28:37.880
<v Speaker 1>one criteria people take people use to decide who should

1:28:37.880 --> 1:28:42.240
<v Speaker 1>be president, but that is not the majority opinion these days.

1:28:42.600 --> 1:28:45.400
<v Speaker 1>All right, I'm going to end things there. I hope

1:28:45.400 --> 1:28:49.200
<v Speaker 1>you enjoyed this episode. Good news is I'll have more

1:28:49.240 --> 1:28:52.360
<v Speaker 1>common later this week, including a couple of people who

1:28:52.439 --> 1:28:55.400
<v Speaker 1>have run for president before on both sides of the eye.

1:28:56.000 --> 1:28:58.640
<v Speaker 1>With that tease out of the way, i'll see a

1:28:58.760 --> 1:29:00.000
<v Speaker 1>sin until we upload again.

1:29:02.080 --> 1:29:02.320
<v Speaker 2>Hey,