The idea of punishing trade is silly; specialization is the sine qua non of prosperity. One man grows tomatoes so another can focus on corn. One takes advantage of long summers to welcome tourists.
Maybe it was a negotiating tactic, they asked. But negotiating for what?
For protecting the sea routes of the world, for one. For making GPS available for free, for another. And so on.
You imply our relationship with Canada is a matter of trading corn for oil or something. That's part of it, but Trump is saying how about paying for some of the defense we put in place for you. And for the Mexicans, he's saying how about not exporting your unemployment problem, or relying so heavily on cash remittances from the USA?
If international relations were a matter of trading professional made shoes for electric vehicles, your analysis would be right on. That is not the whole picture ever since WWII, though. Time to look at the larger picture, Bill.
Oh, here we go! "Maybe it’s a negotiating tactic," they say. Negotiating for what? Oh, I don’t know—maybe negotiating for the privilege of being slapped in the face with higher prices while politicians prance around pretending they’re master strategists.
And then we get this gem:
👉 “For protecting the sea routes of the world, for one.”
Ohhh, right, because clearly, no country in the world can trade without America’s warships heroically floating about. Have they heard of China? You know, the country doing more global trade than the U.S.—somehow managing to move goods across oceans without the Statue of Liberty personally escorting their cargo ships? And here’s the thing—nobody asked the U.S. to be the world’s maritime babysitter! If America suddenly stopped policing sea routes tomorrow, trade would still happen. Other countries would protect their own interests—because shocker: they’re not helpless toddlers.
Then we get this absolute banger:
👉 “We provide GPS for free.”
Ohhh, how generous! Because nothing says selfless goodwill like a U.S. military program that just so happens to benefit Google, Uber, Amazon, and, oh yeah—every guided missile in America’s arsenal. And let’s not pretend other countries don’t have their own systems. The EU’s got Galileo, China’s got BeiDou, and Russia’s got GLONASS. If the U.S. started charging for GPS, people would just use something else. It’s like someone saying, “Oi, you can’t break up with me! I let you use my Netflix password!”
Then there’s this classic:
👉 “Canada should pay for some of the defense we put in place for them.”
Oh, because Canada is just under constant attack, right? The daily struggle of fending off Viking raids and moose uprisings? What exactly is Canada being protected from? Penguins? They’re not at war with anyone! Canada isn’t asking for this “protection”—the U.S. just insists on providing it, then complains when Canada doesn’t foot the bill. It’s like someone randomly washing your car and then demanding payment. “You didn’t ask for this, but I’ve done it, so now you owe me.” No, mate. That’s called a scam.
And then this absolute belter:
👉 “Mexico exports its unemployment problem & relies on cash remittances.”
Ohhh, how dare they! How dare Mexican workers earn money and send it back to their families. What a monstrous thing to do! Never mind the U.S. economy actually needs this labor. Because let’s be honest—who’s picking the strawberries? Who’s cleaning the hotels? Who’s working the kitchens? It’s not Chad from Ohio. If America really didn’t want Mexican labor, they wouldn’t hire them. Simple.
And who’s making the real money?
💰 U.S. companies. Mexican workers buy American products, rent apartments, and pay for services.
💰 The U.S. financial system. Banks make a fortune on remittance fees.
💰 American employers. Oh, they’re not exactly turning down the cheap labor, are they?
So who’s really benefiting? Spoiler: It’s not just Mexico.
And then the grand finale:
👉 “International relations aren’t just about trade.”
Oh, thank you for that deep insight! Really? So what are tariffs, then? Because if Trump’s tariffs were about security costs, why didn’t he say that instead of pretending they’re about fentanyl and illegal immigration?
The truth is, other countries are watching. And they’re thinking, “You know what? Let’s just trade with literally anyone else.” And that’s exactly what’s happening. The EU, China, India—everyone is making deals without the U.S. because they’re sick of the drama.
Final Verdict?
America isn’t some selfless guardian angel handing out free protection. It maintains military, financial, and trade dominance because it benefits America. If Canada or Mexico aren’t “paying their fair share,” then invoice them—don’t slap tariffs on butter and tomatoes and call it diplomacy.
Want a real solution? Cut military spending, end foreign intervention, and stop trying to micromanage the global economy.
Otherwise, this isn’t a strategy—it’s just a really expensive tantrum.
Feel better, Lucas? I'm sure all those straw men you erected feel better.
I presume you know that Russian pilots flying into Ukrainian airspace three years ago were using hand-held GPS monitors because they didn't like/trust GLONASS? (That's their own system.) Yeah -- all those other navigation systems you mentioned, they can replace GPS. Not.
And other navies can protect international shipping lanes. Except if they have a vested interest in the chaos that is being visited on shipping by the world's bad guys: Somali pirates, Houthis, pirates in the straits of Malacca. Sure -- let the Chinese navy (PLAN), which is really a littoral navy and doesn't do blue water sailing because they don't have the maintenance or fueling resources more than 500 miles from home -- let them defend world shipping against the Houthis. Not gonna happen.
I'm not gonna address each and every one of your points. They're pretty puerile and incorrect, but that's ok -- you do you, I'll do me.
Ah, the "Feel better?" opener—because nothing screams serious debate like immediately dismissing everything as an emotional meltdown. Next time, just start with "You mad, bro?" and save us all some time.
Then we get "all those straw men you erected." Which ones, exactly? Because everything laid out was a direct response to claims about tariffs, security, and trade. If pointing out contradictions is straw-manning, then I guess facts are just a personal attack now.
Next up, GPS. Yes, Russian pilots used hand-held GPS monitors in Ukraine. That’s… bad for Russia, not proof that GPS is irreplaceable. The EU has Galileo, China has BeiDou, Russia has GLONASS—and guess what? They're all in active use. Even Apple switched some of its devices to non-U.S. satellite networks just to avoid dependency. If the U.S. shut off GPS tomorrow, would it cause a headache? Sure. Would the rest of the world roll over and stop using navigation? No. That’s like saying if the U.S. banned Uber, nobody could get a ride ever again.
Then we get to "other navies can protect international shipping lanes—except they can’t!" Because, apparently, no one else in the world has any interest in keeping trade routes open. Right, because China, whose entire economy depends on exports, is just going to sit back and let its shipping get hijacked for fun. The U.S. doesn’t protect trade routes out of charity. It does it because it benefits America. That’s why China is building up its own naval power—because, surprise, they also have a vested interest in making sure their goods don’t end up in the hands of Somali pirates.
And then we land on the "I’m not gonna address all your points" closer, which is just a fancy way of saying "I can’t actually counter them, so I’ll call them puerile and pretend I have better things to do." Which is fine. You do you, and I'll do me, but if the best rebuttal is "Trust me, you’re wrong," then this isn’t an argument—it’s just dismissive hand-waving with a sprinkle of attitude.
Mr. Lucas is not all that bright apparently, but like all leftardes is also convinced he is the smartest in the room. But that's ok - more meat for the stew...
Oh wow, what a brutal takedown. I’m absolutely reeling from… checks notes being called not that bright with zero actual argument attached.
So let me get this straight—I’m not that bright, but I somehow think I’m the smartest in the room? Which is it? You can’t be both an idiot and a know-it-all mastermind. That’s like saying a fish is both drowning and breathing too much. Pick a lane.
And then—“more meat for the stew.” What stew? What is this? A policy debate or a Dickensian orphan’s dinner? If you’re going to make metaphors, at least pick one that makes sense.
Look, if I’m so wrong, prove it. Walk through my points, explain where I went off track, hit me with actual counterarguments. But no, instead we’re just going with “leftarde, lol” and calling it a day. That’s not a debate, mate—that’s just shouting “You’re dumb!” and high-fiving yourself.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to that pompous fool.
I'd add the irony of the so called might of US manufacturing. Even when effectively tariff free, American cars are disregarded by the rest of the world because they are awful, the Chinese EVs the Americans denigrate have better features, new tech (suspension) and are still cheaper WITH tariffs. If you want reliability buy Japan/Korea, and if you want luxury or mid range comfort/performance, go to Europe.
Have you ever bought an American TV, laptop, microwave, fridge? No, consumer tech is best from Asia (unless you're American). And if you think Apple is better than Samsung or Huawei, that's a you problem...
Airbus will soon be competing with Chinese manufacturers rather than Boeing (and I'd much rather travel on the Brazilian Embraer than the best 737).
Military tech? Well, I think the Brits in particular run rings round them, albeit at a smaller scale.
Yes, I cantvthink why we're not all kneeling before these God's.
Well I have to admit you make some valid points. I agree with your final verdict but not all of it. IMO we definitely do things because it benefits the USA however other countries put tariffs on us and I like a level playing field so we should reciprocate where appropriate. When countries tax/tariff our goods so they are not competitive with theirs we should level the playing field.
However I don’t agree with cutting military spending, but do think we need to buy what we need and not what congressional reps say we have to because it puts $ in their districts. Having served in the Army for 23 years and working as both an Armor officer and resource management at different levels I have seen waste and I have seen shortages.
Lucas, your argument doesn’t take into account/consideration that there are bad evil people/regimes in this world who would love to dictate to everyone how you will live and what you will do. We need to influence what is happening around us and protect our country.
I also agree with you about other countries looking for alternatives to the dollar and trade as in the BRICS+.
I did what little I could to protect my country and do what was right. It was the self-serving politicians that could screw up a wet dream without waking up that has doomed our country. When a VP can get rich compromising his country and then become president and escalate his graft and not be made an example of, we are doomed. Or how Lindsay graham can accumulate $110 million dollars when he only gets $175k a year you have to wonder where we went wrong.
What happened to freedom gentlemen? They earn the $ they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Be like you taking a trip out of country and not being allowed to take money with you to spend. Surprising from you all. If they worked for it they paid the price to do what they will.
Then hang their employer. I am sure he did not pay top dollar for them. If you want to do it to set an example so nobody else comes across the border fine but be ready to pay much higher prices for having your roof replaced or veggies and fruits from California and Florida not to mention for hotel rooms for service! Pros and cons to everything. Until Congress fixes the immigration system to allow more legal immigrants per year this country is screwed for manual labor. Can only have so many managers and many Americans are not willing to do that work. I know I am not
Middle of the road solution is to HEAVILY TAX/FEE the remittances, thus enticing them to spend the money they illegally earned right here in this Country...
I'm sure there's some famous quote by some famous person about how Hatred and Envy narrow one's Focus and will only allow very limited Interpretations of Reality to seep into one's Consciousness and Writing, while simultaneously deceiving one into ignoring any and all Causes and Effects that would yield actual Understanding of any Positive Aspects or Results regarding the subject(s) at hand -
but I'm not sure who said it and don't have time to look it it up...
"Maybe it’s hatred and envy that prevent you from seeing the bigger picture."
Yeah, okay. Because when you can’t defend an argument, just throw in some vague philosophy, capitalized words for dramatic effect, and boom! You’ve won the debate without actually saying anything.
So let’s break this down: If someone had a real defense of these tariffs, they’d just say it. Instead, we get:
What is the bigger picture? That tariffs magically fix immigration? That taxing butter will stop fentanyl? That Canada should just log onto the Pentagon’s Shopify store and buy a "Shoreline Defense Package" with free shipping?
If the best defense of these tariffs is "You just don't get it, man"—then maybe, just maybe, there’s nothing to get.
Oh dear Lord: "tariffs don't fix immigration." So let's ask Biden to come back and fix immigration -- he did such a good job in four years. Do you even read what you write?
It's a shame you posted when you did: the threat of tariffs -- note the use of the word "threat" -- that's what you left out, the threats brought the prime minister of Canada and the Presidents of Mexico and Panama to the table to discuss our complaints. Something that has not happened for four years. You note that term, right? Four years? That's because there was another president in office, one that we were told was "sharp as a tack".
I don't want the monitors of this discussion board to tell you you may not post, but I think it would be a good idea for you to monitor yourself. You really don't make a good showing.
First off, "tariffs don’t fix immigration" isn’t some shocking revelation—it’s just a basic fact. If raising the price of tomatoes magically stopped border crossings, the world would be a very different place. But sure, let’s just pretend that taxing imported butter is a bold new frontier in immigration policy.
Then we get the "so let’s ask Biden to fix immigration, he did such a great job!" bit. Ah, the classic "Well, the other guy was bad, so this must be good!" argument. That’s not a defense of tariffs, mate—that’s just changing the subject. If a restaurant serves you raw chicken and you complain, they can’t just say "Well, the last chef burnt the steak, so deal with it!"
And then—"it's a shame you posted when you did." Oh, is it? How tragic that I said something before the big historic breakthrough where Canada, Mexico, and Panama agreed to talk about things. Because, of course, no world leaders have ever spoken to each other before Trump dangled a tariff in their faces. Yep, first meeting in four years. They’ve all just been sitting in silence, waiting for the signal.
But here’s the real kicker—the whole "you should monitor yourself" line. Oh wow, strong case you’ve got there. Not "here’s why you’re wrong," not "here’s some counterpoints," just "you should think about not talking." That’s the big intellectual flex?
Mate, if the best argument for tariffs is "Shut up, I don’t like your tone," then you’re already losing.
It's now 9:50pm EST. Mr. Lucas, for all his drivel, has been proven 100% incorrect on every long-winded, toddleresque point he blathered on and on about.
Now expect the deflect, deny, ignore to kick in...
Ah yes, the classic “It’s late at night, so I declare victory” approach. Because, as we all know, arguments aren’t won with logic or facts—they’re won when the clock strikes a certain hour and you just say you’re right.
First off, “proven 100% incorrect”—amazing. Not 99%. Not 98.7%. No, no, we’ve hit the full 100% incorrect rating—a truly flawless record. Not a single word I wrote could possibly have merit. Incredible.
And what exactly was proven wrong? That tariffs don’t stop immigration? That slapping taxes on butter won’t end fentanyl? That world leaders sometimes meet without economic hostage situations? No, no—apparently, none of that stands up because… someone said so at 9:50pm EST.
Then we get the real kicker: “Now expect the deflect, deny, ignore to kick in.” Right, because responding to a bad-faith argument is deflecting, explaining why something’s wrong is denying, and choosing not to waste time on nonsense is ignoring.
Here’s an idea: instead of preemptively whining that I’ll respond, why not just make an actual argument? Instead of declaring victory like a toddler who just put on their own shoes for the first time, why not go through the points, one by one, and explain how they were wrong?
Oh, right—because that would require effort.
It’s easy to sit back, type “I win” like you’re playing a video game against yourself, and call it a night. But until someone actually explains what was wrong, this isn’t a debate—it’s just a victory lap on an empty track.
Nailed it again Lucas. The flip side of what Starboard Edge is projecting into the rest of the world is hubris. Rome, Mongols, British, Ottoman, Australia Hungarian, Aztec, Inca, Egyptian, Byzantine. All empires that believed in their exceptionalism. And all no more.
Funny SE. I actually went to another site and Lucas had an article apologizing to everyone here because he was using AI to come back with sarcastic and comedic replies on this site. It was interesting.
The 39 top economists have been sleeping at the wheel for 40 years. Electric cars don't make sense in Saskatchewan, it's too cold. They don't even make sense in Wyoming which is further south. There may a shit load of economists shouting about decisions but where the hell for the past 40 years of their keynesian idiocy that has put us 36T in debt?
Trump is trying to bring back the middle class in the USA which is what made us so successful. The Obama admin basically declared war on the middle class with the goal to create the ruling rich elite class and the 99% serfs. You can also say that Clinton and W were also aboard with this. Biden admin continued that goal. Trump is trying to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US and rebuild the middle class instead of govt handouts nad $20/hr jobs at McD's. Just my opinion and with the media so biased and the dems willing to do anything to stop Trump being successful even if it hurts America, I doubt it will work.
Stay Positive, Bob. Keep shouting what is Real from the rooftops, posting dross-less Truth on many boards - and be Ungovernable in all the areas that matter...
Oh wow, this is a masterpiece of vague nostalgia, conspiracy vibes, and zero actual economic analysis. Let’s break this down:
👉 “Trump is trying to bring back the middle class.”
Okay, let’s start here: How?
Because if the answer is tariffs, then great—Trump is bringing back the middle class by making sure they pay more for groceries, cars, and raw materials. Nothing says "economic revival" like higher costs on everything you buy.
And if tariffs magically restored the middle class, we should have seen massive economic transformation during Trump’s first term. But guess what? The U.S. manufacturing sector actually shrank in 2019—before COVID, before Biden, before anyone else could be blamed. So... what exactly are we doing differently this time?
👉 “The Obama administration declared war on the middle class to create a ruling elite.”
Ohhh, I see. So it was all a master plan? The 2008 financial crisis wasn’t banks melting down the economy with risky investments—no, no, no, it was actually Obama cackling in his secret lair, plotting to destroy the middle class.
And then, apparently, Clinton and Bush were in on it too? Wow, sounds like a 30-year conspiracy where presidents from both parties just randomly decided to destroy America. And somehow, Trump alone has figured it out.
Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
👉 “Trump is trying to bring back manufacturing jobs instead of government handouts and $20/hr jobs at McDonald's.”
Okay, first—who's stopping him? Who exactly is sitting around saying, "No, no, no, let’s NOT bring back jobs."
Second—manufacturing isn’t disappearing because of tariffs or politics—it’s disappearing because of technology. Companies aren’t sending jobs overseas just for fun. They’re doing it because robots and automation are cheaper than human labor.
So unless Trump is banning robots and AI, he’s not magically reversing this trend. Even if jobs do return, they won’t be the same factory jobs from the 1950s.
👉 “The media is biased, and the Dems will do anything to stop Trump, even if it hurts America.”
Ohhh, I see. So if Trump’s policies fail, it’s not because they’re bad—it’s because there’s a grand Democratic plot to sabotage them.
Nothing says "I have a strong argument" like "If this doesn’t work, it’s because my enemies stopped me."
And let me get this straight—the Democrats would rather tank the economy, ruin the country, and destroy millions of lives than let Trump have a win? Because yeah, that’s totally how government works.
Final Verdict?
✔ Tariffs = good, even if they raise prices.
✔ Every president except Trump is in on a 30-year conspiracy to destroy America.
✔ If Trump fails, it’s not his fault—it’s sabotage!
At this point, why even have elections? Just let Trump rule forever and blame the Deep State for everything that goes wrong.
You really think Trump is "embecilic"? Come on... there is more to this than your Econ 101 textbook and your Keynesian bias. Have you heard of national security risks, unsafe working conditions, environmental damage, trade deficits, unfair trade practices (i.e., dumping), etc. Not to mention negotiating tactics...
Yep heard it all, lived thru it all and am still listening to the words. Econ 101 works in My books . What comes in one hand goes out the other. Maybe some times a little stays behind and I stuff some under My mattress. I like simple things in life . Not thought up ones by other people.
Oh, fantastic. The "You just don’t get it" argument, served with a side of vague buzzwords and a dash of "I bet you haven’t thought of this incredibly obvious thing."
Alright, let’s dive in:
👉 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 ‘𝗶𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗰’?"
I don’t know, mate—𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗹 𝘀𝗺𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 isn’t exactly 𝗮 𝗡𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆. If someone told you they were 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲, would you say, "𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝘀!" or "𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱?"
Also, fun fact: 𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀. But who cares about accuracy when you can just throw out "𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀" like it’s some kind of intellectual mic drop?
Let's see now. It is 6:10 EST and we now have tariffs on hold with Canada & Mexico and promises from both to provide 10,000 troops on borders to stop drugs & illegals.
I think this is a pretty good defense of tariffs and excellent negotiating tactic.
That’s a fair take, and I get why it looks like a win—tariffs were threatened, and now we’re seeing troop commitments from Mexico and Canada. But I think the bigger question is whether tariffs were actually the best tool for this outcome or if there was a smarter, less disruptive way to achieve the same result.
We’ve seen this play out before—Mexico also deployed troops to the border six years ago, and the impact was temporary. The real challenge isn’t just getting troops there, but making sure the strategy actually works long-term. Troop commitments can shift depending on political pressure, funding, and priorities, so without a clear long-term enforcement plan, we could be right back here in a few years having the same debate.
Also, the timing is interesting. The market dropped hard today, which might have played a bigger role in Trump pausing tariffs than any agreement with Mexico or Canada. Investors weren’t reacting like tariffs were a genius move—they were seeing economic disruption and pulling out. If the market crash was a key factor in the reversal, then this isn’t about tariffs being an effective negotiating tool—it’s about economic reality forcing a retreat.
That’s why I think a more effective approach would have been targeted enforcement, direct negotiations, and economic incentives rather than broad tariffs that raise prices on everyday goods. If the goal was border security and stopping fentanyl, then working directly with Mexico and Canada on intelligence-sharing, enforcement, and trade penalties for cartel-linked businesses would have done more without destabilizing trade.
I get the argument that this looks like a victory, but I’d just say—we’ve seen this play before, and the real test isn’t what’s promised today, but whether it actually sticks over time.
It seems to me, Trump is not trying to make this a trade war. He seems to be more transparent than you or anyone else is use to. I believe his motivation is to get governments to move NOW on border issues -- drugs and illegal border crossings -- as stated. And now, bo and lehold, here's Mexico doing something about it. So far, this sounds like a possible win - stay tuned for a month. We shall see.
I agree. may I add that if I was president I may have started things off a little bit different. How, By saying will you close your borders etc ,etc. If things do not improve ,say within 6 months, then there will be tariffs. That way the offenders have time to correct the offense. But then I am not a politician nor would I ever want to be one. Just My humble thoughts.
39 economist declared tariffs a bad idea?? Hmmm. The same economist you rail on for stupid theories like MMT! But hey 51 security “experts” said bidens laptop was fake! Yup. Believe the experts!
But your tomato/shoe analogy only works good sir if one tomato/shoe guy is not getting subsidies from his government to grow their tomatoes and the other is not! Fair trade requires fairness and that is not fair.
On the drug issue you again miss your mark! Nearly 100% of fentonyl ingredients come out of china and it is killing 100,000 yanks a year. We have a drug problem for sure but kill the supplier and maybe our issue will go away?
Finally good sir, go on youtube and pull up “china fakes everything”. You will see in hard facts that chinas EVs are giant piles of poo and as europe is finding out tgrir cars are shit w/ no reliability nor support structure.
Bill I agree with you on most things but you missed the mile marker on this one by a mile!
He also ignores the possibility of the Farmer and/or Cobbler opening up a shop or buying an existing business in the next town over. That is exactly what we are seeing re. Canada...
"Forty-eight per cent also plan to shift their investments to the U.S. and set up operations or production south of the 49th parallel to serve the U.S. market and reduce costs."
Ah, the “just move your business” argument. Because apparently, relocating an entire industry is as easy as switching your Netflix subscription.
First off, yes, some companies will move operations to the U.S. to avoid tariffs. But let’s be clear: that’s not a win for the economy—it’s a sign that tariffs are forcing unnecessary, inefficient business decisions. You’re not growing new industries, you’re just strong-arming companies into spending millions on relocation instead of innovation.
Also, moving an entire business isn’t cheap or easy. It’s not like a Canadian farmer can just uproot his land and replant it in Nebraska. It’s not like a Canadian automaker can snap their fingers and build a U.S. factory overnight. It takes years and massive investment, and in the meantime, guess who’s paying the price? Consumers.
And let’s talk about why businesses move. It’s not just tariffs—it’s labor costs, taxes, regulations, and infrastructure. If the U.S. were truly more competitive, companies would have already moved. But guess what? Many don’t, because Canada actually has advantages—lower healthcare costs, lower energy costs, and more skilled workers in some sectors.
So yes, some Canadian businesses will move to the U.S. But the real question is: Why do we need tariffs to force that to happen? If the U.S. economy were truly competitive, companies would move naturally. Instead, we’re seeing government intervention trying to artificially force a shift.
Which, fun fact, sounds a lot like the “big government meddling” that free-market advocates usually oppose. But sure, let’s pretend this is capitalism at work.
Price is only one factor. Value is the underlying principle to price. Cheap labor is not always best, but in a situation where everything is a price/cost decision, someone will ALWAYS undersell you. Without value-add, you have no differentiation and no path to sustainability. Best always. PM
Ah yes, the "believe the experts?!" argument—because clearly, all expertise is fake unless it supports your point.
First, let’s address the 39 economists who called tariffs a bad idea. Yes, Bill often rails against bad economic theories (as he should), but here’s the thing—tariffs aren’t some complex, mysterious policy with hidden genius. They’re a tax. On you. When you add a tax to imported goods, the cost gets passed on to consumers. So unless the U.S. suddenly builds thousands of new factories overnight, all tariffs really do is raise prices on everything from butter to trucks.
And this leads us to the shoe/tomato analogy. You say fair trade requires fairness—great! But who decides what's "fair"? Because here’s a fun fact—the U.S. also subsidizes its industries. Agriculture? Subsidized. Oil and gas? Subsidized. Manufacturing? Massive corporate tax breaks. So if we’re calling China or Mexico unfair for supporting their own industries, should we also drop every U.S. subsidy to make it "fair"? Or is fairness only a problem when other countries do it?
Now, fentanyl. Yes, nearly all of its precursors come from China. And yes, 100,000 Americans die every year from overdoses. But if the argument is “kill the supplier and maybe our issue will go away,” then… wow, what a groundbreaking idea! If only 50 years of the War on Drugs hadn’t proven that killing suppliers just creates new suppliers.
You know why fentanyl is flooding the U.S.? Because the demand is massive. Because Americans are hooked on opioids thanks to Purdue Pharma and decades of legal overprescription. Because when people get addicted and the pills run out, they turn to street drugs. Tariffs on butter aren’t stopping that. Trade wars aren’t stopping that. You want to fix the problem? Fix addiction. Fix the healthcare system. Fix the mental health crisis that’s leading people to self-medicate with fentanyl.
And finally, China’s fake everything! Yes, China makes some garbage products. So do American companies. (Ever owned a Chrysler?) But if China’s EVs were all "giant piles of poo," why is Tesla literally struggling to compete with BYD? Why are Chinese EVs outselling everyone in the world except Tesla? Are millions of people just dumb, or is there more to the story?
Here’s the deal: Bill didn’t miss the mile marker. You just want a simpler story than reality actually allows. Tariffs don’t magically create jobs. Killing suppliers doesn’t kill drug addiction. And trade isn’t some black-and-white battle of good vs. evil.
So if you want actual solutions, stop looking for villains and start looking at what really works. Otherwise, this isn’t a strategy—it’s just economic cosplay.
Sir watch this. Chinas ev numbers are complete lies
Pharma is evil agreed but china purposely tries to poison & kill us (look up china lead laced food, drywall etc…- fentynal is no accident)
Us labor cost are highest in the world because our standard of living is the highest. America subsidies our industries so we have jobs for american workers competing against those making $1 an hour! I don’t think we need to pay auto workers nearly $45 an hour but having countries completely undermine our industries and dump low cost low quality stuff into our country is a recipe for disaster
Enjoy the china ev video
They do the same with ev bikes. Gov buys this shit to show the world how many they sell and none of it is remotely true. Kinda like their 100% fraudulent real estate market.
Ah yes, the abandoned EVs in fields—a striking visual, loaded with symbolism and accusation. It's the kind of image that lingers. A perfect metaphor for waste, deception, and decay.
It tells a story: China is a fraud. Their EV revolution is fake. The government is inflating numbers, and their economy is built on lies.
But what if I told you this story—this image—was only half true?
👉 First, let's address the EV graveyards.
Yes, these cars exist. But why are they there? Not because China is "faking" EV sales, but because of failed car-sharing companies that went bankrupt during the industry’s chaotic early years. The same thing happened with dockless bikes in major Western cities. Companies like Ofo and Lime overproduced, flooded the market, and left piles of abandoned bikes.
This isn’t proof that the entire industry is fraudulent—it’s proof that rapid growth often leads to bad planning.
👉 Second, let’s talk about EV sales.
Despite these abandoned cars, China sold over 8 million EVs last year. That’s a 37% increase from the year before. Are we to believe these numbers are all fake? That global automakers—including Tesla—are scrambling to compete with a fantasy?
👉 Now, about China "poisoning" America.
Yes, China has a history of quality control scandals—tainted drywall, lead in toys, contaminated baby formula. That’s real. But let’s not pretend that American companies haven’t done the same.
Purdue Pharma flooded the U.S. with opioids—not China.
Volkswagen faked emissions tests.
U.S. companies knowingly sold leaded gasoline for decades.
Is China responsible for fentanyl’s destruction? Partially. But blaming only China ignores that American companies created the opioid epidemic and that the U.S. has failed to address addiction and mental health.
👉 Finally, let’s talk about subsidies.
You say American workers need protection from low-wage competition. Fair enough. But let’s not pretend the U.S. doesn’t do the exact same thing with agriculture, fossil fuels, and defense contracts.
So let’s step back and ask:
Why are we fed these dramatic images—fields of rotting EVs, poisoned baby food, fentanyl as a “bioweapon”?
Why are we encouraged to see China as a shadowy villain rather than a competitor with strengths and weaknesses like any other country?
Who benefits from making us believe this story instead of a more complex reality?
Because while we’re arguing over “China bad”, American corporations keep outsourcing jobs, driving up inflation, and feeding us their own brand of deception.
Buuut. China is a dead country! Its population is old n dying and its repopulation rate stands at .04 when 2.2 is considered the rate needed to stay at even keel! All those years of single child destruction are now coming home to roost. Back then young men were the priority as infantcide of girls was normal. China is dying
Their real estate market has a $9 TRILLION bomb going off in defaults! For comparison our great meltdown was about $1.3 trillion!
They have built over 35 fake empty cities to supposedly boost their gdp over the years! But the truth is they are empty and of shit quality! Buildings where you can literally break concrete off with your hands!
I believe in ‘23 (last year i could find info) 37 major rail and highway bridges simply failed and collapsed (that we know of?) in america 1 would be a tragedy!
China is dying and like a cornered animal they will eventually lash out! Thats the scary part!
As for the US, well we are not far behind. We are in the final stages of the collapse of rome as it was! Search top ten reasons rome fell and you will find we have all 10 checked off!
We are addicted/lying/unethical/scoundrels easily distracted by cheap entertainment that view debauchery as a virtue. Not a huge religious guy myself but may god help us as the future is not bright n shiny and the coming potholes are going to swallow a lot of shit in!
Excellent points except for agreeing with Bill on most points. You can't be reading him on a daily basis. Granted, some good columns, but most are like today's.
Mr. Gallien, My thoughts exactly. Bill turned out an insightful column last Friday, and today's column was an embarrassment. Bill knows full well that Pres. Trump's tariffs are simply a negotiating tactic. The president will use them if he has to, but he would rather work out deals with all countries without resorting to tariffs or threat of military action. I applaud his "Do Business, Not War" program so far.
I can't figure out if Bill has severe TDS, is going a bit senile, or he gets very bored improving his properties around the world, and thus tries to periodically spice up his life by writing crazy stuff on occasion. In other words, he gets a big kick out of stirring the pot; e.g., by mindlessly bashing Pres. Trump or PM Netanyahu.
Notice the pattern. When he is on his game, he rigorously analyzes things, no cherry-picking of stats. When he goes off the reservation, he resorts to rhetorical flourishes, cherry-picking of stats, and generalizations, just like globalists have their leftist flunkies in the legacy media do.
Good analysis, Frank. I agree that Bill has severe TDS but is not senile as he writes a "coherent" column even though it is wrong-headed most of the time. Unfortunately, Bonner is "on his game" very rarely and resorts to exactly what you wrote. But when he keeps Trump out of it, and trade issues out of it, and writes solely about financial and market analysis issues, he's pretty good.
It is not the Middle Ages. The specialization is in the manufacturing process. It has always amazed me to see sophisticated manufacturing move to an underdeveloped country where the educational level is very marginal and within a year or two, they are manufacturing sophisticated products.
How can you be a superpower, have a viable defense, without manufacturing. How can your society exist without jobs. The processes get more sophisticated needing less and less people.
Technology is only power if you use it effectively within your own borders. When you allow manufacturing to leave you are destroying your foundation of power and wealth; you are creating rivals, weakening yourself.
Brother Xave, The CNC machine doesn't know in what country it sits, nor does it know who is operating it. So long as it has electricity, and the proper parameters/input, it does its thing. It comes down to value-add. In the olden days of my youth, the world would pay a premium for "Made in America". Technology largely erased value-add (per my CNC scenario) and reduced it to a question of who (both as an individual and a society) is willing to work for less and accept a subsistence standard of living. On top of all this, we in the USA have passively allowed a situation where we have handicapped ourselves with an exceedingly burdensome government, which not only overly regulates everything, thus adding cost, but also is grossly overcharging its constituents with these outrageous salaries and benefits packages for superfluous and harmful bureaucratic "jobs". Not only is the government too large, it is too expensive, and outrageously so. Go to the suburbs of DC and witness this phenomenon first-hand. Best always. PM
CNC also improves quality of output and efficiency in that the end pieces, assuming your caveat of tooling upkeep, are more uniformly acceptable for service. Result is less waste and fewer defects. I did not want to get into the variables of manufacturing and piece/cost in this limited forum. It was solely to make a point that much of what is at one point a competitive advantage can be mitigated and evened out. Many thanks for your input here. Best always. PM
I think what tends to happen is the lean production specialists resist downtime for re-tooling and force inferior quality onto market with prices that only their leveraged business model can sustain.
Everything that the US was 100 years ago, seems to be gone. The youth throw around fascist.
What Bill describes as competition, capitalism, the production of excellent, cheap, improving products was a process of America. It seems to have been destroyed.
Before Rockefeller, Ford, or Edison it was individuals that produced and created. Then it was small corporations, and the confluence of events, production and invention caused a profound energy, prosperity.
Rockefeller brought kerosene from $6.00 a gallon to $.06 a gallon. Carnegie would tear down a two-year-old plant to build one technologically superior to compete, to keep his people working. They all excelled at their chosen expertise. Americans excelled. Capitalism and all its benefits existed in the US; the US was the industrial giant. Most of the natural resources we had.
Something went wrong. The Muckrakers, spewed hate, and envy, manipulated the American electorate and seedy politicians got involved; business was forced to spend money to control government until it all became a cesspool of corruption.
What worked was destroyed.
We did have a completely self-sufficient food industry, millions of small farmers; now, we have agribusiness and produce gasohol.
It is like “Humpty Dumpty” how do you put it all together again.
I think Russia, with all the sanctions, forced to be independent, apart from the crazy manifestations of the manipulated economies, is in an advantageous position and we should think about getting to be as independent as possible. America first!
It starts with rose-tinted nostalgia, meanders through Rockefeller fan fiction, takes a detour into muckraker paranoia, and somehow ends up at “Russia is doing it right.”
Yes, and he also created one of the most corrupt monopolies in history, crushed competition, bribed politicians, and was literally broken up by the government under antitrust laws.
But sure, let’s only talk about the kerosene prices.
And then fought unions to keep wages low, used strikebreakers, and hired armed guards to attack workers. But yes, let’s ignore that part.
👉 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁.
Ah yes, the golden age of capitalism—when workers had 16-hour shifts, no weekends, and factory fires killed hundreds because emergency exits weren’t a thing.
Look, capitalism still exists. It just evolved. America is still the world’s largest economy. But instead of building steel mills, the U.S. dominates in:
Okay, so what’s the solution? Return to the 1800s and make everyone a subsistence farmer again? Hope you like:
✔ No tractors
✔ No irrigation systems
✔ Working from sunrise to sunset (though Musk might take exception here)
✔ Half your kids dying of disease before adulthood
Agribusiness exists because it’s more efficient. Modern farming feeds more people with fewer workers. That’s why you’re not spending 80% of your income on food, like people did in the 1800s.
Yes, being cut off from the global economy and becoming a resource colony for China and India is actually a good thing! Who needs imported technology, international trade, or foreign investment? Isolation is the future!
🔥 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁?
✔ The past wasn’t perfect—it just had different problems.
✔ The U.S. economy still dominates, just in different industries.
✔ Muckrakers didn’t ruin capitalism—corrupt politicians and monopolies did.
✔ Russia isn’t the model—unless you like inflation, censorship, and declining life expectancy.
If this is the master plan, then I’ve got bad news: Humpty Dumpty isn’t getting put back together—because he was never whole to begin with.
Wow! Quite an answer. You definitely have a well thought out point of view. That is the problem, everyone has them and the ones put into practice seem to work so well. Serendipity is your tune.
I took a trip, across the United State, in 2016; I traveled extensively in 1966.
The changes were extensive. I prefer 1966. We had everything we needed with 80% less problems. People were pleasant and much fewer. Suburban sprawl, 100 miles or more, did not exist and there were no homeless and you never heard much about drug addiction.
I might be biased. I do not like the technology; it is worse than “1984”. I cannot eat electronics.
I read an article, today, Sarasota forced to buy cell phones for workers so that the Sunshine law can be fulfilled and all texts saved. They say storing data will consume 50% of the present grid. They are even experimenting and ressurecting nuclear, something that was vilified in our free press.
Bill keeps preaching doom and gloom. I wonder why?
We will find out.
To me, we, over the years, have experienced, “The big loss.” Freedom is one.
I am into The Stoics: what makes a good life and where does truth come from. Marcus Aurelius says, “God is Truth.” Funny, Christ says, “I am the way and the truth.”
Stoicism concludes that the essence of the good life is to conform to the nature of God, the creator and intelligence in the universe.
Probably, if we did that there would be more harmony. You could say, Godlessness = disharmony and failure.
Let me start by saying that nostalgia is a powerful thing. We all have memories of a time when life seemed simpler, when the problems of today didn’t exist, and when the world, at least in our own recollection, seemed to make a little more sense. But we must ask ourselves—was it 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 better, or were we just younger?
You say you prefer 1966. That’s fair. But let’s remember what 1966 actually was. The Vietnam War was escalating. The Civil Rights Movement was still fighting for basic freedoms. Women were still expected to quit their jobs the moment they got married. Yes, suburban sprawl was smaller, but so were opportunities for many Americans. There were fewer homeless, but there were also 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐬 for those who fell through the cracks. We had different problems, but let’s not pretend they weren’t there.
Technology? Yes, it’s overwhelming at times. But let’s not forget that technology also 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞. It gave us medical advances, instant access to knowledge, and yes, a more complex world—but also a world where we have the 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 to understand and fix our problems like never before.
As for freedom, you say we’ve lost it. But I ask you—what is freedom? Is it the absence of struggle? Or is it the ability to adapt and find meaning 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 the changes around us? The Stoics, whom you admire, would tell us that 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝—𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.
Marcus Aurelius also said, “𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝—𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡.” Maybe the world isn’t the way we wish it were, but we 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 have power over how we face it. And if history tells us anything, it’s that longing for the past has never built the future.
So let us not simply ask, “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐠𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤?” but rather, “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?” That, my friend, is the real question.
Life is always a struggle. I tend to like struggle. I view life as independent; it happens around you and you participate, the more participation, the fuller the life, individual effort, self reliance. I would have preferred to have been born in 1780, to have carved out my existence on the frontier.
I imagine all life, in any epoch, is a new frontier to be encountered and overcome.
I would say that business is just as responsible as any other. Business went and out sourced to cheaper manufacturing sites to increase their profits. Greed is a part Of todays problems.
The US, leaders, are totally corrupted; Congress is nauseous, bought and paid for, the Military, Congressional, Industrial, Spy, Educational, Medical Complex. Greed rules: greed is supported and greed is stupid. Everything in the American system supports greed to the tune of 2 trillion extra each year and a total of 36 trillion increasing exponentially. It could be said that “Greed is Good” because it destroys itself. Pity the poor American citizen, but who is a citizen?
Somebody is responsible…and it is us, no use pointing fingers.
Don, it's the same answer as always, and it's an either-or proposition, just like craps: we can fix the situation, or we can let it fix itself. The first alternative is preferable but also infinitely more difficult, primarily because it takes consensus and will. The second alternative is more chaotic and unknown, and is ultimately destructive, but since it is the path of least resistance, it is what will happen. We are, in my view, in the beginning of the end stages of choice #2. We're on the roller coaster, and the train has left the station. Best always. PM
Um, I think he means it will "fix itself" with the vital assistance of Patriots, Producers and those who have a memory and love their children. And yes - it will be ugly, yet necessary...
There is another way to look at the tariff question.
Consider the modern US grocery store. It is an amazing collection of products from many different suppliers all across the spectrum of household goods and products. Unbeknownst to most everyday shoppers is the fact that suppliers have to pay the grocer for space on the shelves to display their wares. That's right, Lay's potato chips have to pay for the privilege of putting their bags of chips on the shelf at your local grocery store.
Perhaps that is because Lay's understands that if they did not pay for that space, they would have to build out a market structure to distribute all their chips to customers, handle all the monetary exchange costs, shipping to individuals costs, and so on. Grocery stores offer suppliers a 'prebuilt' marketplace. That allows the suppliers to concentrate their resources on providing consumers better chips and getting them to a limited number of store distribution centers, rather than using those resources to complete individual transactions.
If the grocery store tries to charge too much for shelf space, suppliers will find another place to get their wares in front of end customers. If the grocery stores loose too many suppliers from high shelf space charges, they will lower shelf space charges so suppliers will return. Classic win-win transaction processing in action.
The US market is an amazing place for suppliers. Lots of willing end customers with plenty of money to pay for everything under the sun. You could consider the US market as the grocery store with shelf space suppliers have to pay for to access. In other words, tariffs are the shelf space charges for other nations to access the US market. Trade negotiations between the US and other nations will constitute the win-win transactions that make for consensual deals that satisfy each nation's needs.
This argument tries so hard to make tariffs sound like a normal business practice, but it falls apart the second you think about it. Grocery stores charge brands for shelf space, sure—but those brands 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 to pay because it benefits them. A Canadian farmer or a Mexican auto manufacturer isn’t getting some prime real estate in a store; they’re being 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱 to pay extra just to sell their product in the U.S. market. That’s not a business deal, that’s a tax.
And if we’re really going with this grocery store analogy, what happens when other countries start charging the U.S. for "shelf space" too? That’s exactly what happens in trade wars. Tariffs go both ways. Mexico, Canada, and the EU retaliate, making American products more expensive overseas, and suddenly U.S. businesses are losing sales. That’s not competition, that’s just everyone taking turns shooting themselves in the foot.
At the end of the day, tariffs don’t work like grocery store fees. They work like toll booths—except instead of funding roads, they just make everything more expensive for no real gain.
Tariffs are NOT freely paid by consumers to suppliers and merchants. Tariffs are stolen by the governments at gunpoint. The money goes to the biggest liars with the biggest guns. No?
Stimulating debate here, friends! Brilliant thinking on all 3 sides.
Bill, Trump is the king of negotiators and thats proven by Mexicos concession already this morning. His methods may appear madness but I for one give him benefit of the doubt. He is definitely the man for the times.
So, Mexico made a concession this morning? Fantastic. Just like they did six years ago when Trump pulled this exact same stunt. Remember that? No? Of course not. Because if you did, you’d realize this isn’t some masterclass in negotiation—it’s just reruns of a bad reality show.
Let’s go over what actually happened last time:
1. Trump threatened tariffs on Mexico.
2. Mexico put some troops on the border.
3. Trump claimed victory.
4. Border crossings eventually went back up.
But sure, let’s pretend this time is different. Let’s pretend that threatening trade wars is an actual long-term solution and not just a way to create a temporary headline.
His methods may appear madness? No, no—𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. It’s just using economic self-harm as a negotiation tactic. It’s like refusing to eat until your neighbor mows their lawn. Sure, maybe they’ll do it to shut you up, but you’re still the one sitting there hungry.
But hey, keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this time, magically, tariffs won’t raise prices, supply chains won’t get wrecked, and Mexico will suddenly take permanent responsibility for America’s border issues. Or, more likely, we’ll be right back here in a few years, hearing the same people say “Trust the plan.”
Lucas just to refresh your memory, when Trump was president we had no border problem. He in fact stopped it cold and started building the wall. After Biden stole the election and dismantled everything Trump had in place, mass unrestricted fence jumping started and never stopped for 4 years.
Oh, this is rich. "𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽." No problem at all! It was solved! Completely stopped cold! I mean, sure, record border crossings happened in 2019, but let’s just pretend that never happened. Let’s also ignore that Trump’s own DHS Secretary called it a crisis at the time.
But no, no—according to this guy, Trump waved a magic wand, the wall built itself, and suddenly no one even thought about crossing the border. Meanwhile, in reality, migrants were still coming, cartels were still smuggling, and border states were still dealing with the same problems they always had.
Then we get the "𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴" routine. Ah yes, the eternal fallback—because why engage with facts when you can just hit the greatest hits playlist of 2020? It’s like arguing about climate change and suddenly screaming "Benghazi!"
And let’s be honest—if a policy is so fragile that a single election can completely reverse it overnight, then maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t the permanent, foolproof solution you think it was. Because if Trump 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 fixed the border, why did it all collapse so quickly? Shouldn’t a 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 system be harder to dismantle than flipping a few executive orders?
Here’s the thing—border security is complicated. It doesn’t get solved with tariffs, tweets, or walls alone. If Trump’s approach actually worked long-term, we wouldn’t be right back here arguing about it all over again.
But sure, keep telling yourself that the problem magically disappeared for four years and only returned because Biden walked into the White House and personally invited everyone in. Reality says otherwise—but, hey, reality has never been a strong suit for this argument.
Ah, yes—when all else fails, when facts don’t cooperate, just default to faux sympathy. “I feel sorry for you.”
What a spectacular way to avoid an actual discussion. Not a rebuttal, not a counterpoint—just a vague, self-satisfied attempt to shut the conversation down while pretending to take the high road.
I mean, if I’m so hopeless, then why did you even bother replying? If my argument was so weak, surely dismantling it would have been easy? Instead, you skipped the whole debate and went straight for pity.
That’s not an argument. That’s concession with extra steps.
So, let’s make it easy for you:
If Trump really fixed the border, why did crossings hit record highs in 2019?
If his policies were so strong, why did they collapse the second he left office?
And if your best response to these questions is “I feel sorry for you,” then maybe—just maybe—you don’t actually have an answer.
But hey, I get it. Facts are inconvenient. It’s easier to pity someone than to admit you might not have the airtight argument you thought you did.
So go ahead—keep feeling sorry for me. I’ll stick to reality.
"Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand." from "Cool Hand Luke" (1967). Fact is, at this point, we have nothing to lose. Might as well throw our remaining weight around and share the discomfort.
Oh wow. "We have nothing to lose." That is an absolutely brilliant strategy—if you’re a guy in a bar fight who’s already unconscious.
Let’s be real. The "nothing to lose" mindset only makes sense if you’re already completely bankrupt, out of options, and have zero leverage left. The U.S. is still the largest economy in the world. It has plenty to lose. Higher prices, slower growth, damaged trade relationships, retaliatory tariffs—none of this is just "discomfort." It’s self-inflicted damage.
And "share the discomfort"? What is this, economic socialism? I thought the whole point was that America should win at trade, not drag everyone down just for the sake of it.
Also, let’s talk about "throwing our remaining weight around." You only get to do that if people still respect your weight. If the U.S. keeps slapping tariffs on allies and screwing up global trade, other countries aren’t going to bow down—they’re just going to move on. Trade deals with China, the EU, India, and South America are happening without the U.S. And if this continues, America isn’t "throwing its weight around"—it’s just throwing a tantrum while the rest of the world stops listening.
So yeah, "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand"—but not when you’re the guy holding a royal flush and deciding to fold just to make a point.
um, it was a figure of speech in the vein of "let's try this", since we have gotten NOWHERE with Mehico since the 60s except having to take a third of their population off their hands. As far as moving on, isn't that what we all do? Last I looked, the calendar changes at midnight. Best always. PM
Ah yes, the “I’m taking my ball and going home” move. Because nothing says intellectual dominance like announcing to the room that you refuse to hear opposing views while making sure everyone knows you’re doing it.
Let’s break this down. If I was so “ignorant” and so “disparaging,” you’d think this would be easy to refute. Right? I mean, if my argument was that bad, why not just dismantle it piece by piece? Show me where I’m wrong. Give me facts. Prove your point.
Oh, but no. Instead, we get “I’m ignoring you!”—which is the online equivalent of a kid plugging their ears and yelling ‘LA LA LA’ really loudly. It’s not a debate tactic, it’s an admission of defeat wrapped in faux superiority.
And let’s be honest—we all know he’s still reading. Nobody makes a grand exit speech unless they want people to notice. If you really didn’t care, you’d just stop engaging. But no, instead, we get this big dramatic sendoff like it’s the end of a soap opera episode.
So, enjoy “ignoring” me—just try not to strain yourself peeking through your fingers while you do it.
Ah, yes, the classic “It was just a figure of speech” defense. Because nothing says I had a strong argument like immediately backpedaling into “Well, I didn’t mean it literally.”
So let’s unpack this. The claim is that the U.S. has "gotten nowhere" with Mexico since the 60s. Now, I assume this doesn’t include the trillions of dollars in trade, the millions of jobs that exist because of supply chains across the border, or the fact that Mexico is one of the U.S.’s largest trading partners. No, no, apparently, "nowhere" means not getting exactly what we want, exactly when we want it.
And then we get “having to take a third of their population off their hands.” Oh, is that how immigration works? Countries just offload people like they’re dumping old furniture at the curb? By that logic, shouldn’t the U.S. be demanding a refund for all the economic contributions made by Mexican immigrants? Or does that part conveniently not count?
And then—“As far as moving on, isn’t that what we all do? Last I looked, the calendar changes at midnight.” Ah yes, the time exists, therefore things change argument. Brilliant. By this logic, I suppose the only reason the Cold War ended was because the clock struck twelve and everyone just decided to move on.
Look, if the real argument is “we should try something different”, then fine, let’s talk about actual solutions. But “we have nothing to lose” is not a strategy—it’s an excuse. And “let’s just try this” is great… unless “this” is setting yourself on fire and calling it a heating solution.
This is the actual issue: conjecture vs. surety. The whole point of Bonner's "Dominant Trend" idea is making informed/best conjectures. Connect the dots properly, and you think you see what's coming. That's preferable, mentally, to most people than doing nothing and bobbing around like a cork on the ocean's surface, right? Otherwise, futility enters in and then, suddenly, what's the use? Best always. PM
Ah yes, the classic "It's better to do *something* than nothing!" argument—because when has blind action ever gone wrong?
This is basically saying, "Sure, we don’t *know* tariffs will work, but doing nothing is worse, right?" Right… except, if your best guess at a solution actively makes things worse, maybe doing nothing isn’t the worst option. If you’re lost in the woods, and your *conjecture* is to sprint full speed in a random direction, congratulations—you just ran yourself deeper into the forest.
And let’s talk about conjecture vs. surety. Connecting the dots *properly* sounds great, but what happens when you start connecting dots that don’t actually go together? That’s how we get people convinced that raising taxes on butter will stop drug smuggling.
Yes, people prefer to *feel* like they’re in control rather than just bobbing around like a cork. But here’s the thing—if the water is full of sharks, maybe bobbing for a bit is smarter than thrashing around and bleeding everywhere.
Certainly a factor, but what two individuals see history the same way? Some people deny the Holocaust. Others want to tear down monuments. Best always. PM
You are completely correct in one aspect: human nature is a constant; so, history is essentially a reflection of that. You won't get a match, but you will get a rhyme. Best always. PM
Have acquaintances that work at Ford Motor company and when we discussed the 100% tariff on the China electric vehicles they told me that even w/ 100% tariffs they would still undersell us for what we can make them. I have to believe that free trade is better just as is free will. A captive market is what anyone would want but human nature is always to find a better way. One of the wealthiest men from Minnesota, Curt Carlson, started the Gold Bond stamps and changed marketing. I was fascinated by one of his mantra's as I a younger man learning about business "There must be a better way find it". It sounds so simple but it is indeed how the world works.
The great thing about free trade is it forces win win deals for if there is no value then there is no trade!
This actually gets to the real issue—China’s manufacturing costs are so low that even with a 100% tariff, their EVs could still be cheaper than American-made ones. That’s not because of some secret conspiracy, it’s because China has mastered large-scale, cost-efficient production. Blocking their cars with tariffs doesn’t suddenly make American EVs better or cheaper—it just forces consumers to pay more for fewer options.
The real solution? Innovation, efficiency, and competing on quality. And that’s where the "There must be a better way, find it" mantra actually applies. Protectionism is not finding a better way—it’s artificially propping up industries instead of making them truly competitive. The auto industry didn’t survive by blocking Japanese imports—it adapted. It innovated. It had to get better.
And that last point is key: Free trade works because both sides benefit. If they don’t, there’s no deal. That’s what makes it sustainable. Tariffs, on the other hand, just distort the market, create inefficiencies, and end up being a tax on the very people they claim to help.
So yes, find the better way. But that way isn’t blocking competition—it’s rising to meet it.
Well, that didn't age well Bill. Bill always has good insights, but has blinders on such that ALL he sees is basic economics and trade, as if the world is full of only honest people. There are problems that need to be solved (drugs, human trafficking, violence) that *sometimes* require solutions that go against the basic economics. Trump threatened a disruption of the trade that honest people want in order to get those people to agree to deal with some difficult problems. Now Mexico has agreed to do exactly that. Widen your gaze a bit Bill, Trump had you snookered on this one.
Oh, this is classic. "Well, that didn’t age well, Bill!" Yeah, because clearly, every complex geopolitical issue is solved within a week, right?
So let’s break this down. First, we get the usual “Bill just doesn’t understand the bigger picture” argument. Right, okay. Because the real problem isn’t that tariffs make things more expensive, disrupt supply chains, and trigger retaliatory trade wars—it’s that Bill refuses to acknowledge that the world is full of bad people. Got it.
Then we get the “Trump had to break the rules of economics to fix the real issues” argument. Ah, of course. The old “Sometimes you’ve got to do something completely counterproductive to solve a problem” approach. It’s like saying, “I can’t stop my house from flooding, so I’ve set fire to it instead.” Brilliant.
And now we’re celebrating because Mexico agreed to something—again. Just like they did six years ago. So what exactly happened last time? Oh right, they put some troops on the border, numbers dipped briefly, then went right back up. But sure, let’s pretend this time is different.
At the end of the day, this argument is basically “Trump knew better than the economists, tariffs are actually a secret negotiating tool, and Bill just doesn’t get it.” Right. Or—and hear me out—maybe this is just another case of using an economic sledgehammer to solve a problem that requires actual policy and cooperation. But hey, let’s all celebrate that Mexico agreed to another short-term stunt while the actual issues remain exactly where they were.
OK, now Canada has also agreed to increase drug interdiction and border security. Your head is in a place where the view isn't so good. Take a look at what you might call abusive negotiation, but it seems to be achieving the intended results without months of political doublespeak and no action (aka the Biden administration).
Ah, so now Canada’s onboard too? Well, fantastic. Because if there’s one thing history has taught us, it’s that short-term, reactionary agreements under economic threat always lead to long-term stability.
But let’s take a step back. The claim here is that bullying works—that throwing tariffs around like a sledgehammer is better than diplomacy because, hey, it forces people to act right now. Sure. But let’s ask the real question: what happens when the pressure is off?
Mexico sent troops to the border six years ago under the exact same circumstances. What happened? A temporary drop in crossings, a political victory lap, and then... back to normal. Why? Because actual enforcement and policy reform require long-term planning, not just reactive gestures to dodge tariffs.
And let’s not forget the bigger picture: the rest of the world is watching. This isn’t some brilliant long-term strategy—it’s a short-term shakedown that makes allies hesitant to trust the U.S. in future negotiations. Because here’s the thing: nobody likes dealing with an unstable trade partner. Countries don’t want to be in a position where their economy can be held hostage on a whim.
So yeah, Canada and Mexico are playing along—for now. But what’s the actual cost of these kinds of tactics?
- It erodes trust with allies who now know the U.S. is willing to throw trade into chaos to get what it wants.
- It pushes countries to seek alternative partners (hello, China, the EU, India—literally anyone else).
- It creates a reputation of unpredictability, which means that next time the U.S. actually needs cooperation, the first reaction won’t be negotiation—it’ll be hesitation.
Look, if the goal was better border security and stopping drug flow, there were smarter ways to do it—like using existing trade agreements to enforce compliance over time, rather than threatening to blow up the economic relationship overnight. This isn’t some masterclass in negotiation—it’s just fomenting chaos and calling it strategy.
And while the U.S. is busy shaking down its neighbors, the rest of the world is taking notes. Some are keeping their distance. Others? Well, they’re probably just waiting for their turn to kiss the ring—or at least pretend to, until they can move on.
You are conflating trade agreements, which happen between governments, and actual trade, which happens between companies and individuals (excepting government procurement of course). In this particular case, Trump wants action on border security and fentanyl, and these other countries are saying "Not our problem". How would you go about getting their attention when you believe they in fact can help with our problem if properly motivated? You need leverage to get them motivated. Negotiation isn't going to get you anywhere. A pain point will.
You see, pain alone is not leverage. Any brute can cause pain. A child with a stick can cause pain. A bad swordsman swinging wildly can cause pain. But leverage—true leverage—is about knowing where to apply force so that the pain leads to compliance, not resentment.
You think tariffs are a masterstroke of negotiation. But I must ask:
What happens when the pain stops?
👉 Mexico sent troops to the border six years ago. A brief pause. A brief victory lap. And then? Back to normal.
👉 Canada agrees to ramp up drug enforcement. But does this mean Canada has suddenly declared war on fentanyl production? Or does it mean they pretend to care just long enough to get the tariffs lifted?
👉 And most importantly: What do these countries learn from this? That the U.S. is a partner to be trusted? No. They learn the U.S. is a bully to be tolerated until the next time they feel the need to push back.
This is not leverage. This is short-term coercion. It does not build compliance—it builds resistance.
And what does the U.S. get in return?
📌 A reputation for unpredictability. Trade partners hesitate to engage because they never know when they’ll be the next target.
📌 A slow erosion of trust. Because once countries know the U.S. negotiates with a sledgehammer, they start looking elsewhere—China, India, the EU.
📌 A pattern where Mexico and Canada will play along for now—but the second they see an opportunity to align with a more stable trade partner, they take it.
So, my friend, I ask you:
Do you want short-term compliance? Or do you want long-term results?
Because if all you seek is a temporary flinch, then yes—by all means, keep swinging your sword wildly.
But if you seek true leverage, you must apply force where it creates lasting cooperation—not just temporary obedience.
Otherwise, you are not negotiating.
You are simply waiting for your turn to be outplayed.
I think I'm just going to sit and watch for awhile Bill.
The 39 economists say tariffs are a bad idea... the same economists would argue against sound money, hate gold and laud our federal reserve controlled (supposedly) credit based economy. Is it really a free trade world when we are the only ones practicing it.
Bill, I think I'm just going to sit and watch for awhile... what is hasn't been working so well so I'll remain open to some other ideas.
If American workers have to compete with global slave labor where wages are as low as $5 dollars a day, almost nothing will be made in America ever again. A truly free and level playing field would include open boarders where human capital can migrate to wherever the wages are highest. I think we need protectionism right now to help dismantle globalist power over our sovereignty. May not look pretty but is necessary right now to recapture control over our destiny. For example, Panama can not hand control of the canal we built and gifted them to China.
Yes, but open borders assures the lowest common denominator prevails. If everyone must have everything, no one will have anything. We have forestalled this result via deficit spending, but the day of reckoning is now at hand. Best always. PM
If I may just add , is what You want a necessity or just a want. Necessities of life come first. Other things as and when is appropriate. Just My view of having to learn the hard way on many an instant.
Ah yes, the idea that protectionism is the only way to stop the race to the bottom. Because nothing says economic strength like making everything more expensive while pretending global supply chains don’t exist.
Let’s start with the first claim: If American workers have to compete with global slave labor, nothing will be made in America again. Except… that’s already been happening for decades, and guess what? America still makes a lot of things—just not the same things it made in 1950. Manufacturing jobs shifted to high-tech, advanced industries because, surprise, the U.S. isn’t competitive in mass-producing cheap T-shirts and plastic toys. That’s not a bad thing—it’s called progress.
Then we get the “truly free and level playing field” argument. Yes, if we really wanted pure free-market competition, borders would be open, and people could move freely to where wages are best. But wait—wasn’t the whole point of protectionism to stop cheap labor from coming in? So which is it? Free-market wages or protectionism? You can’t complain about cheap foreign labor while also blocking foreign workers from coming here to demand better pay.
And then we hit the big finale: We need protectionism to dismantle globalist power over our sovereignty. Ah, right, because the real problem isn’t economic efficiency or competitiveness—it’s shadowy globalist forces pulling the strings. This is the part where everything goes from economics to conspiracy theory.
Then we get the Panama Canal curveball—because what even is an argument about U.S. tariffs without suddenly bringing up China? Yes, China is involved in infrastructure deals worldwide. But let’s not pretend the U.S. was “tricked” into giving up the Panama Canal. The U.S. built the canal in 1914, but it was always understood that it sat on Panama’s land. By the late 1970s, the U.S. agreed to return full control to Panama, and in 1999, that transfer was completed. Now, people are upset that Panama has made business deals with China involving the canal, as if the U.S. still owns it. But that’s like Britain complaining that they used to control the original 13 American colonies, so they should have a say in how the U.S. runs its affairs today. It’s history—times change, sovereignty shifts, and countries make their own economic choices.
So here’s the real question: What’s actually the goal? Because protectionism isn’t some noble mission to reclaim sovereignty—it’s just a tax on consumers that makes certain industries artificially profitable while everyone else pays more. If that’s the plan, fine, but let’s not pretend it’s some grand patriotic crusade. It’s just another way to pick economic winners and losers.
What a simplistic load of codswallop Bill. I expect better. You throw in a few small truths to cover up the bigger picture. Here in Australia being a much smaller country, we've seen the folly of trying to compete with countries that pay workers $3 an hour. That's not "free" trade. It has cost us nearly all of our manufacturing industries and put our country into welfare dependency and enormous debt. We, like you, were once an independent sovereign nation that took pride in itself and its people, but now we are a mish mash of disparate races, who don't get on, overly dependent on drugs and welfare. All because some well intentioned idealogue from the Left [John Button & co.]thought it would be a great idea to outsource our work and our national identity, to Asia, because they don't have a great welfare state and free everything. Free trade destroyed our way of life so we could buy cheaper T.V's. I wish we had an Australian leader that loved his country as much as Trump obviously loves his.
Oh wow, this has everything—economic collapse, cultural doom, national identity crisis, and of course, if only we had a leader like Trump!
Alright, let’s take this apart. First, we get free trade destroyed Australia’s way of life. Really? Because last I checked, Australia consistently ranks as one of the wealthiest, highest-living-standard countries in the world. If free trade was the apocalypse you’re describing, Australia should look like the set of Mad Max by now. Instead, it has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, Germany, and Canada. You can’t say free trade ruined us while also living in a country where the biggest problem for most people is how to afford their third overseas vacation.
Then we get the paying workers three bucks an hour isn’t free trade argument. That part is fair—trade isn’t always perfectly balanced. But let’s be real, the alternative isn’t some magical return to 1950s industrial dominance where everyone works a stable factory job and drives a Holden with a kangaroo in the backseat. Manufacturing has declined in every developed country, not just Australia. Why? Because economies evolve. That’s why nobody’s out here demanding that Australia take back the global steam engine market.
Then we hit the we used to be a proud, sovereign nation, now we’re a mishmash of disparate races who don’t get along line. Oh boy. That’s the part where the economic argument goes straight into the gutter. Yes, Australia has changed. So has literally every other country on the planet. But acting like diversity is the cause of economic decline instead of, I don’t know, bad policy choices, underinvestment, and shifting global trends is just lazy thinking. It’s like blaming the thermostat for the weather.
And finally, the we need a leader like Trump moment. Because, of course, if only Australia had a leader who slapped tariffs on everything, added trillions to the national debt, and forced farmers into massive government bailouts, then everything would be fine. Never mind the fact that his trade war with China hurt American manufacturing more than it helped. None of that matters, because at least he loved his country, right?
At the end of the day, Australia’s economic challenges aren’t because of free trade alone, and they definitely aren’t because of immigration. The world changes, industries shift, and successful countries adapt. Blaming the entire problem on trade is like blaming umbrellas for the rain.
Try again. I didn't say Oz isn't wealthy. We are because we sell all the good stuff in the ground to China and others so they can prosper. We look good on paper because houses cost over a $1million and cars almost as much. GDP looks good. Debt is over
$1trillion from $zero on 2007. Ask any local that isn't straight out of high school if he feels better off now, or when we weren't so "diverse". Ask a Jew in Western Sydney. Should look like Mad Max? Depends where you look. Spend a week in Wadeye. Wake up to yourself. Free trade is one factor but it was just a response to Bill's claptrap on the subject.
Alright mate, let’s grab a drink and talk about this like human beings instead of hurling economic stats at each other like bricks.
I hear you. Not in some “𝐩𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞-𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞” kind of way, but really—I get it. You’re not saying Australia isn’t rich. You’re saying 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. Fair point. Anyone who’s paying attention knows there’s a 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝.
Here in Canada, we’re seeing it too. In cities across the country—especially out west—𝐰𝐞’𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞. Desperation, drug addiction, crime—𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝟏𝟎 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞. And when people say, “𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞,” I don’t think they’re just being nostalgic—I think they’re reacting to something real.
But let’s talk about 𝐰𝐡𝐲 life feels tougher, because I don’t think “diversity” is the enemy here. You said yourself—Australia’s got 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭, 𝐬𝐤𝐲𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, and wages that aren’t keeping up. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐠𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧. That’s 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.
I won’t argue that free trade is perfect. But what’s the alternative? 𝐒𝐡𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧? 𝐏𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞? You can’t just will Australia back to 1965. The world doesn’t work like that.
And look, I get why people bring up Trump. He’s got that whole "𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧" thing going. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐇𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐬, 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬. You know who ended up paying for that? 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. It’s always regular people.
So yeah, 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭. And yeah, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠. But let’s not pretend the cause is 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 free trade or 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 immigration. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐳𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫. The real answer? 𝐖𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡.
I’ve heard wonderful stories about Australia, and one day I’ll come ashore myself.
So, what do you want? A time machine, or an actual plan? Because 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬.
Maybe it was a negotiating tactic, they asked. But negotiating for what?
For protecting the sea routes of the world, for one. For making GPS available for free, for another. And so on.
You imply our relationship with Canada is a matter of trading corn for oil or something. That's part of it, but Trump is saying how about paying for some of the defense we put in place for you. And for the Mexicans, he's saying how about not exporting your unemployment problem, or relying so heavily on cash remittances from the USA?
If international relations were a matter of trading professional made shoes for electric vehicles, your analysis would be right on. That is not the whole picture ever since WWII, though. Time to look at the larger picture, Bill.
Oh, here we go! "Maybe it’s a negotiating tactic," they say. Negotiating for what? Oh, I don’t know—maybe negotiating for the privilege of being slapped in the face with higher prices while politicians prance around pretending they’re master strategists.
And then we get this gem:
👉 “For protecting the sea routes of the world, for one.”
Ohhh, right, because clearly, no country in the world can trade without America’s warships heroically floating about. Have they heard of China? You know, the country doing more global trade than the U.S.—somehow managing to move goods across oceans without the Statue of Liberty personally escorting their cargo ships? And here’s the thing—nobody asked the U.S. to be the world’s maritime babysitter! If America suddenly stopped policing sea routes tomorrow, trade would still happen. Other countries would protect their own interests—because shocker: they’re not helpless toddlers.
Then we get this absolute banger:
👉 “We provide GPS for free.”
Ohhh, how generous! Because nothing says selfless goodwill like a U.S. military program that just so happens to benefit Google, Uber, Amazon, and, oh yeah—every guided missile in America’s arsenal. And let’s not pretend other countries don’t have their own systems. The EU’s got Galileo, China’s got BeiDou, and Russia’s got GLONASS. If the U.S. started charging for GPS, people would just use something else. It’s like someone saying, “Oi, you can’t break up with me! I let you use my Netflix password!”
Then there’s this classic:
👉 “Canada should pay for some of the defense we put in place for them.”
Oh, because Canada is just under constant attack, right? The daily struggle of fending off Viking raids and moose uprisings? What exactly is Canada being protected from? Penguins? They’re not at war with anyone! Canada isn’t asking for this “protection”—the U.S. just insists on providing it, then complains when Canada doesn’t foot the bill. It’s like someone randomly washing your car and then demanding payment. “You didn’t ask for this, but I’ve done it, so now you owe me.” No, mate. That’s called a scam.
And then this absolute belter:
👉 “Mexico exports its unemployment problem & relies on cash remittances.”
Ohhh, how dare they! How dare Mexican workers earn money and send it back to their families. What a monstrous thing to do! Never mind the U.S. economy actually needs this labor. Because let’s be honest—who’s picking the strawberries? Who’s cleaning the hotels? Who’s working the kitchens? It’s not Chad from Ohio. If America really didn’t want Mexican labor, they wouldn’t hire them. Simple.
And who’s making the real money?
💰 U.S. companies. Mexican workers buy American products, rent apartments, and pay for services.
💰 The U.S. financial system. Banks make a fortune on remittance fees.
💰 American employers. Oh, they’re not exactly turning down the cheap labor, are they?
So who’s really benefiting? Spoiler: It’s not just Mexico.
And then the grand finale:
👉 “International relations aren’t just about trade.”
Oh, thank you for that deep insight! Really? So what are tariffs, then? Because if Trump’s tariffs were about security costs, why didn’t he say that instead of pretending they’re about fentanyl and illegal immigration?
The truth is, other countries are watching. And they’re thinking, “You know what? Let’s just trade with literally anyone else.” And that’s exactly what’s happening. The EU, China, India—everyone is making deals without the U.S. because they’re sick of the drama.
Final Verdict?
America isn’t some selfless guardian angel handing out free protection. It maintains military, financial, and trade dominance because it benefits America. If Canada or Mexico aren’t “paying their fair share,” then invoice them—don’t slap tariffs on butter and tomatoes and call it diplomacy.
Want a real solution? Cut military spending, end foreign intervention, and stop trying to micromanage the global economy.
Otherwise, this isn’t a strategy—it’s just a really expensive tantrum.
Feel better, Lucas? I'm sure all those straw men you erected feel better.
I presume you know that Russian pilots flying into Ukrainian airspace three years ago were using hand-held GPS monitors because they didn't like/trust GLONASS? (That's their own system.) Yeah -- all those other navigation systems you mentioned, they can replace GPS. Not.
And other navies can protect international shipping lanes. Except if they have a vested interest in the chaos that is being visited on shipping by the world's bad guys: Somali pirates, Houthis, pirates in the straits of Malacca. Sure -- let the Chinese navy (PLAN), which is really a littoral navy and doesn't do blue water sailing because they don't have the maintenance or fueling resources more than 500 miles from home -- let them defend world shipping against the Houthis. Not gonna happen.
I'm not gonna address each and every one of your points. They're pretty puerile and incorrect, but that's ok -- you do you, I'll do me.
Ah, the "Feel better?" opener—because nothing screams serious debate like immediately dismissing everything as an emotional meltdown. Next time, just start with "You mad, bro?" and save us all some time.
Then we get "all those straw men you erected." Which ones, exactly? Because everything laid out was a direct response to claims about tariffs, security, and trade. If pointing out contradictions is straw-manning, then I guess facts are just a personal attack now.
Next up, GPS. Yes, Russian pilots used hand-held GPS monitors in Ukraine. That’s… bad for Russia, not proof that GPS is irreplaceable. The EU has Galileo, China has BeiDou, Russia has GLONASS—and guess what? They're all in active use. Even Apple switched some of its devices to non-U.S. satellite networks just to avoid dependency. If the U.S. shut off GPS tomorrow, would it cause a headache? Sure. Would the rest of the world roll over and stop using navigation? No. That’s like saying if the U.S. banned Uber, nobody could get a ride ever again.
Then we get to "other navies can protect international shipping lanes—except they can’t!" Because, apparently, no one else in the world has any interest in keeping trade routes open. Right, because China, whose entire economy depends on exports, is just going to sit back and let its shipping get hijacked for fun. The U.S. doesn’t protect trade routes out of charity. It does it because it benefits America. That’s why China is building up its own naval power—because, surprise, they also have a vested interest in making sure their goods don’t end up in the hands of Somali pirates.
And then we land on the "I’m not gonna address all your points" closer, which is just a fancy way of saying "I can’t actually counter them, so I’ll call them puerile and pretend I have better things to do." Which is fine. You do you, and I'll do me, but if the best rebuttal is "Trust me, you’re wrong," then this isn’t an argument—it’s just dismissive hand-waving with a sprinkle of attitude.
Mr. Lucas is not all that bright apparently, but like all leftardes is also convinced he is the smartest in the room. But that's ok - more meat for the stew...
Oh wow, what a brutal takedown. I’m absolutely reeling from… checks notes being called not that bright with zero actual argument attached.
So let me get this straight—I’m not that bright, but I somehow think I’m the smartest in the room? Which is it? You can’t be both an idiot and a know-it-all mastermind. That’s like saying a fish is both drowning and breathing too much. Pick a lane.
And then—“more meat for the stew.” What stew? What is this? A policy debate or a Dickensian orphan’s dinner? If you’re going to make metaphors, at least pick one that makes sense.
Look, if I’m so wrong, prove it. Walk through my points, explain where I went off track, hit me with actual counterarguments. But no, instead we’re just going with “leftarde, lol” and calling it a day. That’s not a debate, mate—that’s just shouting “You’re dumb!” and high-fiving yourself.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to that pompous fool.
I'd add the irony of the so called might of US manufacturing. Even when effectively tariff free, American cars are disregarded by the rest of the world because they are awful, the Chinese EVs the Americans denigrate have better features, new tech (suspension) and are still cheaper WITH tariffs. If you want reliability buy Japan/Korea, and if you want luxury or mid range comfort/performance, go to Europe.
Have you ever bought an American TV, laptop, microwave, fridge? No, consumer tech is best from Asia (unless you're American). And if you think Apple is better than Samsung or Huawei, that's a you problem...
Airbus will soon be competing with Chinese manufacturers rather than Boeing (and I'd much rather travel on the Brazilian Embraer than the best 737).
Military tech? Well, I think the Brits in particular run rings round them, albeit at a smaller scale.
Yes, I cantvthink why we're not all kneeling before these God's.
Well I have to admit you make some valid points. I agree with your final verdict but not all of it. IMO we definitely do things because it benefits the USA however other countries put tariffs on us and I like a level playing field so we should reciprocate where appropriate. When countries tax/tariff our goods so they are not competitive with theirs we should level the playing field.
However I don’t agree with cutting military spending, but do think we need to buy what we need and not what congressional reps say we have to because it puts $ in their districts. Having served in the Army for 23 years and working as both an Armor officer and resource management at different levels I have seen waste and I have seen shortages.
Lucas, your argument doesn’t take into account/consideration that there are bad evil people/regimes in this world who would love to dictate to everyone how you will live and what you will do. We need to influence what is happening around us and protect our country.
I also agree with you about other countries looking for alternatives to the dollar and trade as in the BRICS+.
I did what little I could to protect my country and do what was right. It was the self-serving politicians that could screw up a wet dream without waking up that has doomed our country. When a VP can get rich compromising his country and then become president and escalate his graft and not be made an example of, we are doomed. Or how Lindsay graham can accumulate $110 million dollars when he only gets $175k a year you have to wonder where we went wrong.
God bless the USA!🇺🇸
Great comment
we should be taxing these remittances since mexico heavily relies on them
Taxing? How 'bout disallowing? Interdicting? Best always. PM
Nah - it's their money, they "earned" it. Let 'em send it home - with a 30% "Surcharge"...
If I can't get the whole magilla, I guess 30% will have to do. Best always. PM
What happened to freedom gentlemen? They earn the $ they should be able to do whatever they want with it. Be like you taking a trip out of country and not being allowed to take money with you to spend. Surprising from you all. If they worked for it they paid the price to do what they will.
except they are illegal and paid zero tax on those earnings, which are mostly paid in cash
Then hang their employer. I am sure he did not pay top dollar for them. If you want to do it to set an example so nobody else comes across the border fine but be ready to pay much higher prices for having your roof replaced or veggies and fruits from California and Florida not to mention for hotel rooms for service! Pros and cons to everything. Until Congress fixes the immigration system to allow more legal immigrants per year this country is screwed for manual labor. Can only have so many managers and many Americans are not willing to do that work. I know I am not
Middle of the road solution is to HEAVILY TAX/FEE the remittances, thus enticing them to spend the money they illegally earned right here in this Country...
I'm sure there's some famous quote by some famous person about how Hatred and Envy narrow one's Focus and will only allow very limited Interpretations of Reality to seep into one's Consciousness and Writing, while simultaneously deceiving one into ignoring any and all Causes and Effects that would yield actual Understanding of any Positive Aspects or Results regarding the subject(s) at hand -
but I'm not sure who said it and don't have time to look it it up...
Ohhh, this is a classic.
"Maybe it’s hatred and envy that prevent you from seeing the bigger picture."
Yeah, okay. Because when you can’t defend an argument, just throw in some vague philosophy, capitalized words for dramatic effect, and boom! You’ve won the debate without actually saying anything.
So let’s break this down: If someone had a real defense of these tariffs, they’d just say it. Instead, we get:
𝗡𝗼 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
𝗡𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀.
𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝗴𝘂𝗲 "𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲" 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀.
What is the bigger picture? That tariffs magically fix immigration? That taxing butter will stop fentanyl? That Canada should just log onto the Pentagon’s Shopify store and buy a "Shoreline Defense Package" with free shipping?
If the best defense of these tariffs is "You just don't get it, man"—then maybe, just maybe, there’s nothing to get.
Oh dear Lord: "tariffs don't fix immigration." So let's ask Biden to come back and fix immigration -- he did such a good job in four years. Do you even read what you write?
It's a shame you posted when you did: the threat of tariffs -- note the use of the word "threat" -- that's what you left out, the threats brought the prime minister of Canada and the Presidents of Mexico and Panama to the table to discuss our complaints. Something that has not happened for four years. You note that term, right? Four years? That's because there was another president in office, one that we were told was "sharp as a tack".
I don't want the monitors of this discussion board to tell you you may not post, but I think it would be a good idea for you to monitor yourself. You really don't make a good showing.
Oh dear Lord indeed.
First off, "tariffs don’t fix immigration" isn’t some shocking revelation—it’s just a basic fact. If raising the price of tomatoes magically stopped border crossings, the world would be a very different place. But sure, let’s just pretend that taxing imported butter is a bold new frontier in immigration policy.
Then we get the "so let’s ask Biden to fix immigration, he did such a great job!" bit. Ah, the classic "Well, the other guy was bad, so this must be good!" argument. That’s not a defense of tariffs, mate—that’s just changing the subject. If a restaurant serves you raw chicken and you complain, they can’t just say "Well, the last chef burnt the steak, so deal with it!"
And then—"it's a shame you posted when you did." Oh, is it? How tragic that I said something before the big historic breakthrough where Canada, Mexico, and Panama agreed to talk about things. Because, of course, no world leaders have ever spoken to each other before Trump dangled a tariff in their faces. Yep, first meeting in four years. They’ve all just been sitting in silence, waiting for the signal.
But here’s the real kicker—the whole "you should monitor yourself" line. Oh wow, strong case you’ve got there. Not "here’s why you’re wrong," not "here’s some counterpoints," just "you should think about not talking." That’s the big intellectual flex?
Mate, if the best argument for tariffs is "Shut up, I don’t like your tone," then you’re already losing.
It's now 9:50pm EST. Mr. Lucas, for all his drivel, has been proven 100% incorrect on every long-winded, toddleresque point he blathered on and on about.
Now expect the deflect, deny, ignore to kick in...
Ah yes, the classic “It’s late at night, so I declare victory” approach. Because, as we all know, arguments aren’t won with logic or facts—they’re won when the clock strikes a certain hour and you just say you’re right.
First off, “proven 100% incorrect”—amazing. Not 99%. Not 98.7%. No, no, we’ve hit the full 100% incorrect rating—a truly flawless record. Not a single word I wrote could possibly have merit. Incredible.
And what exactly was proven wrong? That tariffs don’t stop immigration? That slapping taxes on butter won’t end fentanyl? That world leaders sometimes meet without economic hostage situations? No, no—apparently, none of that stands up because… someone said so at 9:50pm EST.
Then we get the real kicker: “Now expect the deflect, deny, ignore to kick in.” Right, because responding to a bad-faith argument is deflecting, explaining why something’s wrong is denying, and choosing not to waste time on nonsense is ignoring.
Here’s an idea: instead of preemptively whining that I’ll respond, why not just make an actual argument? Instead of declaring victory like a toddler who just put on their own shoes for the first time, why not go through the points, one by one, and explain how they were wrong?
Oh, right—because that would require effort.
It’s easy to sit back, type “I win” like you’re playing a video game against yourself, and call it a night. But until someone actually explains what was wrong, this isn’t a debate—it’s just a victory lap on an empty track.
Better ask chatGPT to answer for you SE.
Great job pointing this out Lucas. We need to be very careful now...
Nailed it again Lucas. The flip side of what Starboard Edge is projecting into the rest of the world is hubris. Rome, Mongols, British, Ottoman, Australia Hungarian, Aztec, Inca, Egyptian, Byzantine. All empires that believed in their exceptionalism. And all no more.
Funny SE. I actually went to another site and Lucas had an article apologizing to everyone here because he was using AI to come back with sarcastic and comedic replies on this site. It was interesting.
The 39 top economists have been sleeping at the wheel for 40 years. Electric cars don't make sense in Saskatchewan, it's too cold. They don't even make sense in Wyoming which is further south. There may a shit load of economists shouting about decisions but where the hell for the past 40 years of their keynesian idiocy that has put us 36T in debt?
Trump is trying to bring back the middle class in the USA which is what made us so successful. The Obama admin basically declared war on the middle class with the goal to create the ruling rich elite class and the 99% serfs. You can also say that Clinton and W were also aboard with this. Biden admin continued that goal. Trump is trying to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US and rebuild the middle class instead of govt handouts nad $20/hr jobs at McD's. Just my opinion and with the media so biased and the dems willing to do anything to stop Trump being successful even if it hurts America, I doubt it will work.
Stay Positive, Bob. Keep shouting what is Real from the rooftops, posting dross-less Truth on many boards - and be Ungovernable in all the areas that matter...
Oh wow, this is a masterpiece of vague nostalgia, conspiracy vibes, and zero actual economic analysis. Let’s break this down:
👉 “Trump is trying to bring back the middle class.”
Okay, let’s start here: How?
Because if the answer is tariffs, then great—Trump is bringing back the middle class by making sure they pay more for groceries, cars, and raw materials. Nothing says "economic revival" like higher costs on everything you buy.
And if tariffs magically restored the middle class, we should have seen massive economic transformation during Trump’s first term. But guess what? The U.S. manufacturing sector actually shrank in 2019—before COVID, before Biden, before anyone else could be blamed. So... what exactly are we doing differently this time?
👉 “The Obama administration declared war on the middle class to create a ruling elite.”
Ohhh, I see. So it was all a master plan? The 2008 financial crisis wasn’t banks melting down the economy with risky investments—no, no, no, it was actually Obama cackling in his secret lair, plotting to destroy the middle class.
And then, apparently, Clinton and Bush were in on it too? Wow, sounds like a 30-year conspiracy where presidents from both parties just randomly decided to destroy America. And somehow, Trump alone has figured it out.
Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
👉 “Trump is trying to bring back manufacturing jobs instead of government handouts and $20/hr jobs at McDonald's.”
Okay, first—who's stopping him? Who exactly is sitting around saying, "No, no, no, let’s NOT bring back jobs."
Second—manufacturing isn’t disappearing because of tariffs or politics—it’s disappearing because of technology. Companies aren’t sending jobs overseas just for fun. They’re doing it because robots and automation are cheaper than human labor.
So unless Trump is banning robots and AI, he’s not magically reversing this trend. Even if jobs do return, they won’t be the same factory jobs from the 1950s.
👉 “The media is biased, and the Dems will do anything to stop Trump, even if it hurts America.”
Ohhh, I see. So if Trump’s policies fail, it’s not because they’re bad—it’s because there’s a grand Democratic plot to sabotage them.
Nothing says "I have a strong argument" like "If this doesn’t work, it’s because my enemies stopped me."
And let me get this straight—the Democrats would rather tank the economy, ruin the country, and destroy millions of lives than let Trump have a win? Because yeah, that’s totally how government works.
Final Verdict?
✔ Tariffs = good, even if they raise prices.
✔ Every president except Trump is in on a 30-year conspiracy to destroy America.
✔ If Trump fails, it’s not his fault—it’s sabotage!
At this point, why even have elections? Just let Trump rule forever and blame the Deep State for everything that goes wrong.
Yawn, snort.
Next...
You really think Trump is "embecilic"? Come on... there is more to this than your Econ 101 textbook and your Keynesian bias. Have you heard of national security risks, unsafe working conditions, environmental damage, trade deficits, unfair trade practices (i.e., dumping), etc. Not to mention negotiating tactics...
Yep heard it all, lived thru it all and am still listening to the words. Econ 101 works in My books . What comes in one hand goes out the other. Maybe some times a little stays behind and I stuff some under My mattress. I like simple things in life . Not thought up ones by other people.
Oh, fantastic. The "You just don’t get it" argument, served with a side of vague buzzwords and a dash of "I bet you haven’t thought of this incredibly obvious thing."
Alright, let’s dive in:
👉 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 ‘𝗶𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗰’?"
I don’t know, mate—𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗹 𝘀𝗺𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 isn’t exactly 𝗮 𝗡𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆. If someone told you they were 𝗳𝗶𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲, would you say, "𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝘀!" or "𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜’𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱?"
👉 "𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗻... 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻 𝟭𝟬𝟭 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀."
Ah, yes. The classic "𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻." Right, okay. Because nothing says "𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁-𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴" like 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗯𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲.
Also, fun fact: 𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀. But who cares about accuracy when you can just throw out "𝗞𝗲𝘆𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀" like it’s some kind of intellectual mic drop?
👉 "𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀, 𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝘂𝗻𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶.𝗲., 𝗱𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴?"
Oh, wow. 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗻. Nobody has 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 thought of these things before. Thank you for introducing us to these 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝘀.
Yes, 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁. No, 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁.
Yes, 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹. No, 𝗷𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.
𝗦𝗼, 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲:
🔹 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗵𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀.
🔹 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗿𝘂𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
🔹 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 “𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰” 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲.
If this is 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 of tariffs, then maybe, just maybe… 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲.
Let's see now. It is 6:10 EST and we now have tariffs on hold with Canada & Mexico and promises from both to provide 10,000 troops on borders to stop drugs & illegals.
I think this is a pretty good defense of tariffs and excellent negotiating tactic.
Deflect, deny, ignore incoming.
Every. Single. Time...
That’s a fair take, and I get why it looks like a win—tariffs were threatened, and now we’re seeing troop commitments from Mexico and Canada. But I think the bigger question is whether tariffs were actually the best tool for this outcome or if there was a smarter, less disruptive way to achieve the same result.
We’ve seen this play out before—Mexico also deployed troops to the border six years ago, and the impact was temporary. The real challenge isn’t just getting troops there, but making sure the strategy actually works long-term. Troop commitments can shift depending on political pressure, funding, and priorities, so without a clear long-term enforcement plan, we could be right back here in a few years having the same debate.
Also, the timing is interesting. The market dropped hard today, which might have played a bigger role in Trump pausing tariffs than any agreement with Mexico or Canada. Investors weren’t reacting like tariffs were a genius move—they were seeing economic disruption and pulling out. If the market crash was a key factor in the reversal, then this isn’t about tariffs being an effective negotiating tool—it’s about economic reality forcing a retreat.
That’s why I think a more effective approach would have been targeted enforcement, direct negotiations, and economic incentives rather than broad tariffs that raise prices on everyday goods. If the goal was border security and stopping fentanyl, then working directly with Mexico and Canada on intelligence-sharing, enforcement, and trade penalties for cartel-linked businesses would have done more without destabilizing trade.
I get the argument that this looks like a victory, but I’d just say—we’ve seen this play before, and the real test isn’t what’s promised today, but whether it actually sticks over time.
It seems to me, Trump is not trying to make this a trade war. He seems to be more transparent than you or anyone else is use to. I believe his motivation is to get governments to move NOW on border issues -- drugs and illegal border crossings -- as stated. And now, bo and lehold, here's Mexico doing something about it. So far, this sounds like a possible win - stay tuned for a month. We shall see.
At 6:19 pm EST it is a win.
I agree. may I add that if I was president I may have started things off a little bit different. How, By saying will you close your borders etc ,etc. If things do not improve ,say within 6 months, then there will be tariffs. That way the offenders have time to correct the offense. But then I am not a politician nor would I ever want to be one. Just My humble thoughts.
Don, I think the whole speed thing is so the Left didn't have time to regroup and white ant him like last time. They have been blindsided.
Good point, blind sided.
They are blind-sided AND hysterical.
Glorious and Hilarious at the same time...
Bill
39 economist declared tariffs a bad idea?? Hmmm. The same economist you rail on for stupid theories like MMT! But hey 51 security “experts” said bidens laptop was fake! Yup. Believe the experts!
But your tomato/shoe analogy only works good sir if one tomato/shoe guy is not getting subsidies from his government to grow their tomatoes and the other is not! Fair trade requires fairness and that is not fair.
On the drug issue you again miss your mark! Nearly 100% of fentonyl ingredients come out of china and it is killing 100,000 yanks a year. We have a drug problem for sure but kill the supplier and maybe our issue will go away?
Finally good sir, go on youtube and pull up “china fakes everything”. You will see in hard facts that chinas EVs are giant piles of poo and as europe is finding out tgrir cars are shit w/ no reliability nor support structure.
Bill I agree with you on most things but you missed the mile marker on this one by a mile!
He also ignores the possibility of the Farmer and/or Cobbler opening up a shop or buying an existing business in the next town over. That is exactly what we are seeing re. Canada...
"Forty-eight per cent also plan to shift their investments to the U.S. and set up operations or production south of the 49th parallel to serve the U.S. market and reduce costs."
https://kpmg.com/ca/en/home/media/press-releases/2025/01/fight-tariffs-with-tariffs-kpmg-business-survey.html
Ah, the “just move your business” argument. Because apparently, relocating an entire industry is as easy as switching your Netflix subscription.
First off, yes, some companies will move operations to the U.S. to avoid tariffs. But let’s be clear: that’s not a win for the economy—it’s a sign that tariffs are forcing unnecessary, inefficient business decisions. You’re not growing new industries, you’re just strong-arming companies into spending millions on relocation instead of innovation.
Also, moving an entire business isn’t cheap or easy. It’s not like a Canadian farmer can just uproot his land and replant it in Nebraska. It’s not like a Canadian automaker can snap their fingers and build a U.S. factory overnight. It takes years and massive investment, and in the meantime, guess who’s paying the price? Consumers.
And let’s talk about why businesses move. It’s not just tariffs—it’s labor costs, taxes, regulations, and infrastructure. If the U.S. were truly more competitive, companies would have already moved. But guess what? Many don’t, because Canada actually has advantages—lower healthcare costs, lower energy costs, and more skilled workers in some sectors.
So yes, some Canadian businesses will move to the U.S. But the real question is: Why do we need tariffs to force that to happen? If the U.S. economy were truly competitive, companies would move naturally. Instead, we’re seeing government intervention trying to artificially force a shift.
Which, fun fact, sounds a lot like the “big government meddling” that free-market advocates usually oppose. But sure, let’s pretend this is capitalism at work.
Yes going across to the cheaper labor. Where have I seen or heard that story before? Hmmmmm.
Price is only one factor. Value is the underlying principle to price. Cheap labor is not always best, but in a situation where everything is a price/cost decision, someone will ALWAYS undersell you. Without value-add, you have no differentiation and no path to sustainability. Best always. PM
So is this a win win situation? Or sort of?
Ah yes, the "believe the experts?!" argument—because clearly, all expertise is fake unless it supports your point.
First, let’s address the 39 economists who called tariffs a bad idea. Yes, Bill often rails against bad economic theories (as he should), but here’s the thing—tariffs aren’t some complex, mysterious policy with hidden genius. They’re a tax. On you. When you add a tax to imported goods, the cost gets passed on to consumers. So unless the U.S. suddenly builds thousands of new factories overnight, all tariffs really do is raise prices on everything from butter to trucks.
And this leads us to the shoe/tomato analogy. You say fair trade requires fairness—great! But who decides what's "fair"? Because here’s a fun fact—the U.S. also subsidizes its industries. Agriculture? Subsidized. Oil and gas? Subsidized. Manufacturing? Massive corporate tax breaks. So if we’re calling China or Mexico unfair for supporting their own industries, should we also drop every U.S. subsidy to make it "fair"? Or is fairness only a problem when other countries do it?
Now, fentanyl. Yes, nearly all of its precursors come from China. And yes, 100,000 Americans die every year from overdoses. But if the argument is “kill the supplier and maybe our issue will go away,” then… wow, what a groundbreaking idea! If only 50 years of the War on Drugs hadn’t proven that killing suppliers just creates new suppliers.
You know why fentanyl is flooding the U.S.? Because the demand is massive. Because Americans are hooked on opioids thanks to Purdue Pharma and decades of legal overprescription. Because when people get addicted and the pills run out, they turn to street drugs. Tariffs on butter aren’t stopping that. Trade wars aren’t stopping that. You want to fix the problem? Fix addiction. Fix the healthcare system. Fix the mental health crisis that’s leading people to self-medicate with fentanyl.
And finally, China’s fake everything! Yes, China makes some garbage products. So do American companies. (Ever owned a Chrysler?) But if China’s EVs were all "giant piles of poo," why is Tesla literally struggling to compete with BYD? Why are Chinese EVs outselling everyone in the world except Tesla? Are millions of people just dumb, or is there more to the story?
Here’s the deal: Bill didn’t miss the mile marker. You just want a simpler story than reality actually allows. Tariffs don’t magically create jobs. Killing suppliers doesn’t kill drug addiction. And trade isn’t some black-and-white battle of good vs. evil.
So if you want actual solutions, stop looking for villains and start looking at what really works. Otherwise, this isn’t a strategy—it’s just economic cosplay.
TLDR - again...
https://youtu.be/1SEfwoqKRU8?si=aSRDr9-72hdEkiYn
Sir watch this. Chinas ev numbers are complete lies
Pharma is evil agreed but china purposely tries to poison & kill us (look up china lead laced food, drywall etc…- fentynal is no accident)
Us labor cost are highest in the world because our standard of living is the highest. America subsidies our industries so we have jobs for american workers competing against those making $1 an hour! I don’t think we need to pay auto workers nearly $45 an hour but having countries completely undermine our industries and dump low cost low quality stuff into our country is a recipe for disaster
Enjoy the china ev video
They do the same with ev bikes. Gov buys this shit to show the world how many they sell and none of it is remotely true. Kinda like their 100% fraudulent real estate market.
Ah yes, the abandoned EVs in fields—a striking visual, loaded with symbolism and accusation. It's the kind of image that lingers. A perfect metaphor for waste, deception, and decay.
It tells a story: China is a fraud. Their EV revolution is fake. The government is inflating numbers, and their economy is built on lies.
But what if I told you this story—this image—was only half true?
👉 First, let's address the EV graveyards.
Yes, these cars exist. But why are they there? Not because China is "faking" EV sales, but because of failed car-sharing companies that went bankrupt during the industry’s chaotic early years. The same thing happened with dockless bikes in major Western cities. Companies like Ofo and Lime overproduced, flooded the market, and left piles of abandoned bikes.
This isn’t proof that the entire industry is fraudulent—it’s proof that rapid growth often leads to bad planning.
👉 Second, let’s talk about EV sales.
Despite these abandoned cars, China sold over 8 million EVs last year. That’s a 37% increase from the year before. Are we to believe these numbers are all fake? That global automakers—including Tesla—are scrambling to compete with a fantasy?
👉 Now, about China "poisoning" America.
Yes, China has a history of quality control scandals—tainted drywall, lead in toys, contaminated baby formula. That’s real. But let’s not pretend that American companies haven’t done the same.
Purdue Pharma flooded the U.S. with opioids—not China.
Volkswagen faked emissions tests.
U.S. companies knowingly sold leaded gasoline for decades.
Is China responsible for fentanyl’s destruction? Partially. But blaming only China ignores that American companies created the opioid epidemic and that the U.S. has failed to address addiction and mental health.
👉 Finally, let’s talk about subsidies.
You say American workers need protection from low-wage competition. Fair enough. But let’s not pretend the U.S. doesn’t do the exact same thing with agriculture, fossil fuels, and defense contracts.
So let’s step back and ask:
Why are we fed these dramatic images—fields of rotting EVs, poisoned baby food, fentanyl as a “bioweapon”?
Why are we encouraged to see China as a shadowy villain rather than a competitor with strengths and weaknesses like any other country?
Who benefits from making us believe this story instead of a more complex reality?
Because while we’re arguing over “China bad”, American corporations keep outsourcing jobs, driving up inflation, and feeding us their own brand of deception.
All great points sir
Buuut. China is a dead country! Its population is old n dying and its repopulation rate stands at .04 when 2.2 is considered the rate needed to stay at even keel! All those years of single child destruction are now coming home to roost. Back then young men were the priority as infantcide of girls was normal. China is dying
Their real estate market has a $9 TRILLION bomb going off in defaults! For comparison our great meltdown was about $1.3 trillion!
They have built over 35 fake empty cities to supposedly boost their gdp over the years! But the truth is they are empty and of shit quality! Buildings where you can literally break concrete off with your hands!
I believe in ‘23 (last year i could find info) 37 major rail and highway bridges simply failed and collapsed (that we know of?) in america 1 would be a tragedy!
China is dying and like a cornered animal they will eventually lash out! Thats the scary part!
As for the US, well we are not far behind. We are in the final stages of the collapse of rome as it was! Search top ten reasons rome fell and you will find we have all 10 checked off!
We are addicted/lying/unethical/scoundrels easily distracted by cheap entertainment that view debauchery as a virtue. Not a huge religious guy myself but may god help us as the future is not bright n shiny and the coming potholes are going to swallow a lot of shit in!
Excellent points except for agreeing with Bill on most points. You can't be reading him on a daily basis. Granted, some good columns, but most are like today's.
Mr. Gallien, My thoughts exactly. Bill turned out an insightful column last Friday, and today's column was an embarrassment. Bill knows full well that Pres. Trump's tariffs are simply a negotiating tactic. The president will use them if he has to, but he would rather work out deals with all countries without resorting to tariffs or threat of military action. I applaud his "Do Business, Not War" program so far.
I can't figure out if Bill has severe TDS, is going a bit senile, or he gets very bored improving his properties around the world, and thus tries to periodically spice up his life by writing crazy stuff on occasion. In other words, he gets a big kick out of stirring the pot; e.g., by mindlessly bashing Pres. Trump or PM Netanyahu.
Notice the pattern. When he is on his game, he rigorously analyzes things, no cherry-picking of stats. When he goes off the reservation, he resorts to rhetorical flourishes, cherry-picking of stats, and generalizations, just like globalists have their leftist flunkies in the legacy media do.
But it keeps Lucas and the Ol' Man stiff, so there's that...
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🤣🤣🤣
Good analysis, Frank. I agree that Bill has severe TDS but is not senile as he writes a "coherent" column even though it is wrong-headed most of the time. Unfortunately, Bonner is "on his game" very rarely and resorts to exactly what you wrote. But when he keeps Trump out of it, and trade issues out of it, and writes solely about financial and market analysis issues, he's pretty good.
Right, good point about senility.
It is not the Middle Ages. The specialization is in the manufacturing process. It has always amazed me to see sophisticated manufacturing move to an underdeveloped country where the educational level is very marginal and within a year or two, they are manufacturing sophisticated products.
How can you be a superpower, have a viable defense, without manufacturing. How can your society exist without jobs. The processes get more sophisticated needing less and less people.
Technology is only power if you use it effectively within your own borders. When you allow manufacturing to leave you are destroying your foundation of power and wealth; you are creating rivals, weakening yourself.
Brother Xave, The CNC machine doesn't know in what country it sits, nor does it know who is operating it. So long as it has electricity, and the proper parameters/input, it does its thing. It comes down to value-add. In the olden days of my youth, the world would pay a premium for "Made in America". Technology largely erased value-add (per my CNC scenario) and reduced it to a question of who (both as an individual and a society) is willing to work for less and accept a subsistence standard of living. On top of all this, we in the USA have passively allowed a situation where we have handicapped ourselves with an exceedingly burdensome government, which not only overly regulates everything, thus adding cost, but also is grossly overcharging its constituents with these outrageous salaries and benefits packages for superfluous and harmful bureaucratic "jobs". Not only is the government too large, it is too expensive, and outrageously so. Go to the suburbs of DC and witness this phenomenon first-hand. Best always. PM
CNC increases volume. Quality control is still a skilled job as the tooling wears out.
Process line controls are a specialist job.
CNC also improves quality of output and efficiency in that the end pieces, assuming your caveat of tooling upkeep, are more uniformly acceptable for service. Result is less waste and fewer defects. I did not want to get into the variables of manufacturing and piece/cost in this limited forum. It was solely to make a point that much of what is at one point a competitive advantage can be mitigated and evened out. Many thanks for your input here. Best always. PM
I think what tends to happen is the lean production specialists resist downtime for re-tooling and force inferior quality onto market with prices that only their leveraged business model can sustain.
It is credit cycle dependent.
Everything that the US was 100 years ago, seems to be gone. The youth throw around fascist.
What Bill describes as competition, capitalism, the production of excellent, cheap, improving products was a process of America. It seems to have been destroyed.
Before Rockefeller, Ford, or Edison it was individuals that produced and created. Then it was small corporations, and the confluence of events, production and invention caused a profound energy, prosperity.
Rockefeller brought kerosene from $6.00 a gallon to $.06 a gallon. Carnegie would tear down a two-year-old plant to build one technologically superior to compete, to keep his people working. They all excelled at their chosen expertise. Americans excelled. Capitalism and all its benefits existed in the US; the US was the industrial giant. Most of the natural resources we had.
Something went wrong. The Muckrakers, spewed hate, and envy, manipulated the American electorate and seedy politicians got involved; business was forced to spend money to control government until it all became a cesspool of corruption.
What worked was destroyed.
We did have a completely self-sufficient food industry, millions of small farmers; now, we have agribusiness and produce gasohol.
It is like “Humpty Dumpty” how do you put it all together again.
I think Russia, with all the sanctions, forced to be independent, apart from the crazy manifestations of the manipulated economies, is in an advantageous position and we should think about getting to be as independent as possible. America first!
Oh wow, this one is a journey.
It starts with rose-tinted nostalgia, meanders through Rockefeller fan fiction, takes a detour into muckraker paranoia, and somehow ends up at “Russia is doing it right.”
Alright, let’s break it down:
👉 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝟭𝟬𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗲.
Yes, because **the world is not the same place it was in 1924.**
Back then:
✔ No Social Security
✔ No environmental laws
✔ No workers' rights (Child labor? Totally normal!)
✔ Segregation was legal
✔ Women just got the right to vote
So yeah, a few things have changed. Some for the worse, a lot for the better.
👉 𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿, 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱.
Right, because Rockefeller, Ford, and Edison weren’t individuals? What were they—AI-generated holograms?
Also, small businesses still exist. In fact, they make up 99.9% of all U.S. businesses. But sure, let’s pretend capitalism has been "destroyed."
👉 𝗥𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗸𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 $𝟲.𝟬𝟬 𝘁𝗼 $𝟬.𝟬𝟲 𝗮 𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗻.
Yes, and he also created one of the most corrupt monopolies in history, crushed competition, bribed politicians, and was literally broken up by the government under antitrust laws.
But sure, let’s only talk about the kerosene prices.
👉 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.
And then fought unions to keep wages low, used strikebreakers, and hired armed guards to attack workers. But yes, let’s ignore that part.
👉 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁.
Ah yes, the golden age of capitalism—when workers had 16-hour shifts, no weekends, and factory fires killed hundreds because emergency exits weren’t a thing.
Look, capitalism still exists. It just evolved. America is still the world’s largest economy. But instead of building steel mills, the U.S. dominates in:
✔ Tech (Apple, Google, Microsoft)
✔ Finance (Wall Street still rules the world)
✔ Pharmaceuticals (Big Pharma isn’t exactly struggling)
✔ Military-industrial complex (Nobody’s out-spending the U.S. on weapons)
But sure, let’s pretend America has collapsed because we’re not building steam engines anymore.
👉 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲.
Ah, so the real problem wasn’t monopolies, corruption, or exploitation—it was the journalists who exposed them?
Yes, let’s blame the people who pointed out child labor, unsafe working conditions, and corporate bribery—because clearly, they ruined everything.
👉 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀; 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀.
Okay, so what’s the solution? Return to the 1800s and make everyone a subsistence farmer again? Hope you like:
✔ No tractors
✔ No irrigation systems
✔ Working from sunrise to sunset (though Musk might take exception here)
✔ Half your kids dying of disease before adulthood
Agribusiness exists because it’s more efficient. Modern farming feeds more people with fewer workers. That’s why you’re not spending 80% of your income on food, like people did in the 1800s.
👉 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆 𝗗𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆—𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿?
I don’t know, maybe don’t wish for a return to 1900?
👉 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
Ohhhh, so now Russia is the role model?
Yes, being cut off from the global economy and becoming a resource colony for China and India is actually a good thing! Who needs imported technology, international trade, or foreign investment? Isolation is the future!
🔥 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁?
✔ The past wasn’t perfect—it just had different problems.
✔ The U.S. economy still dominates, just in different industries.
✔ Muckrakers didn’t ruin capitalism—corrupt politicians and monopolies did.
✔ Russia isn’t the model—unless you like inflation, censorship, and declining life expectancy.
If this is the master plan, then I’ve got bad news: Humpty Dumpty isn’t getting put back together—because he was never whole to begin with.
Wow! Quite an answer. You definitely have a well thought out point of view. That is the problem, everyone has them and the ones put into practice seem to work so well. Serendipity is your tune.
I took a trip, across the United State, in 2016; I traveled extensively in 1966.
The changes were extensive. I prefer 1966. We had everything we needed with 80% less problems. People were pleasant and much fewer. Suburban sprawl, 100 miles or more, did not exist and there were no homeless and you never heard much about drug addiction.
I might be biased. I do not like the technology; it is worse than “1984”. I cannot eat electronics.
I read an article, today, Sarasota forced to buy cell phones for workers so that the Sunshine law can be fulfilled and all texts saved. They say storing data will consume 50% of the present grid. They are even experimenting and ressurecting nuclear, something that was vilified in our free press.
Bill keeps preaching doom and gloom. I wonder why?
We will find out.
To me, we, over the years, have experienced, “The big loss.” Freedom is one.
I am into The Stoics: what makes a good life and where does truth come from. Marcus Aurelius says, “God is Truth.” Funny, Christ says, “I am the way and the truth.”
Stoicism concludes that the essence of the good life is to conform to the nature of God, the creator and intelligence in the universe.
Probably, if we did that there would be more harmony. You could say, Godlessness = disharmony and failure.
I expect you would rail against that assumption.
It's becoming obvious Lucas rails against any and everything. He's particularly tiresome today.
Great post, Xavier...
Let me start by saying that nostalgia is a powerful thing. We all have memories of a time when life seemed simpler, when the problems of today didn’t exist, and when the world, at least in our own recollection, seemed to make a little more sense. But we must ask ourselves—was it 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 better, or were we just younger?
You say you prefer 1966. That’s fair. But let’s remember what 1966 actually was. The Vietnam War was escalating. The Civil Rights Movement was still fighting for basic freedoms. Women were still expected to quit their jobs the moment they got married. Yes, suburban sprawl was smaller, but so were opportunities for many Americans. There were fewer homeless, but there were also 𝐟𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐬 for those who fell through the cracks. We had different problems, but let’s not pretend they weren’t there.
Technology? Yes, it’s overwhelming at times. But let’s not forget that technology also 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞. It gave us medical advances, instant access to knowledge, and yes, a more complex world—but also a world where we have the 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 to understand and fix our problems like never before.
As for freedom, you say we’ve lost it. But I ask you—what is freedom? Is it the absence of struggle? Or is it the ability to adapt and find meaning 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 the changes around us? The Stoics, whom you admire, would tell us that 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝—𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.
Marcus Aurelius also said, “𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝—𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡.” Maybe the world isn’t the way we wish it were, but we 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 have power over how we face it. And if history tells us anything, it’s that longing for the past has never built the future.
So let us not simply ask, “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐠𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤?” but rather, “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫?” That, my friend, is the real question.
Life is always a struggle. I tend to like struggle. I view life as independent; it happens around you and you participate, the more participation, the fuller the life, individual effort, self reliance. I would have preferred to have been born in 1780, to have carved out my existence on the frontier.
I imagine all life, in any epoch, is a new frontier to be encountered and overcome.
Your last few paragraphs were exquisite.
I would say that business is just as responsible as any other. Business went and out sourced to cheaper manufacturing sites to increase their profits. Greed is a part Of todays problems.
The US, leaders, are totally corrupted; Congress is nauseous, bought and paid for, the Military, Congressional, Industrial, Spy, Educational, Medical Complex. Greed rules: greed is supported and greed is stupid. Everything in the American system supports greed to the tune of 2 trillion extra each year and a total of 36 trillion increasing exponentially. It could be said that “Greed is Good” because it destroys itself. Pity the poor American citizen, but who is a citizen?
Somebody is responsible…and it is us, no use pointing fingers.
Hate to admit it , but You are so correct. What to do now? This is My question, of which I do not have an answer.
Don, it's the same answer as always, and it's an either-or proposition, just like craps: we can fix the situation, or we can let it fix itself. The first alternative is preferable but also infinitely more difficult, primarily because it takes consensus and will. The second alternative is more chaotic and unknown, and is ultimately destructive, but since it is the path of least resistance, it is what will happen. We are, in my view, in the beginning of the end stages of choice #2. We're on the roller coaster, and the train has left the station. Best always. PM
So is it going to fix itself? Probably would if government was not allowed to fix it. On all sides of North America's borders.
Um, I think he means it will "fix itself" with the vital assistance of Patriots, Producers and those who have a memory and love their children. And yes - it will be ugly, yet necessary...
Right on. That's what Pogo said.
There is another way to look at the tariff question.
Consider the modern US grocery store. It is an amazing collection of products from many different suppliers all across the spectrum of household goods and products. Unbeknownst to most everyday shoppers is the fact that suppliers have to pay the grocer for space on the shelves to display their wares. That's right, Lay's potato chips have to pay for the privilege of putting their bags of chips on the shelf at your local grocery store.
Perhaps that is because Lay's understands that if they did not pay for that space, they would have to build out a market structure to distribute all their chips to customers, handle all the monetary exchange costs, shipping to individuals costs, and so on. Grocery stores offer suppliers a 'prebuilt' marketplace. That allows the suppliers to concentrate their resources on providing consumers better chips and getting them to a limited number of store distribution centers, rather than using those resources to complete individual transactions.
If the grocery store tries to charge too much for shelf space, suppliers will find another place to get their wares in front of end customers. If the grocery stores loose too many suppliers from high shelf space charges, they will lower shelf space charges so suppliers will return. Classic win-win transaction processing in action.
The US market is an amazing place for suppliers. Lots of willing end customers with plenty of money to pay for everything under the sun. You could consider the US market as the grocery store with shelf space suppliers have to pay for to access. In other words, tariffs are the shelf space charges for other nations to access the US market. Trade negotiations between the US and other nations will constitute the win-win transactions that make for consensual deals that satisfy each nation's needs.
This argument tries so hard to make tariffs sound like a normal business practice, but it falls apart the second you think about it. Grocery stores charge brands for shelf space, sure—but those brands 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲 to pay because it benefits them. A Canadian farmer or a Mexican auto manufacturer isn’t getting some prime real estate in a store; they’re being 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗱 to pay extra just to sell their product in the U.S. market. That’s not a business deal, that’s a tax.
And if we’re really going with this grocery store analogy, what happens when other countries start charging the U.S. for "shelf space" too? That’s exactly what happens in trade wars. Tariffs go both ways. Mexico, Canada, and the EU retaliate, making American products more expensive overseas, and suddenly U.S. businesses are losing sales. That’s not competition, that’s just everyone taking turns shooting themselves in the foot.
At the end of the day, tariffs don’t work like grocery store fees. They work like toll booths—except instead of funding roads, they just make everything more expensive for no real gain.
Tariffs are NOT freely paid by consumers to suppliers and merchants. Tariffs are stolen by the governments at gunpoint. The money goes to the biggest liars with the biggest guns. No?
Stimulating debate here, friends! Brilliant thinking on all 3 sides.
Sort of like a captive market!
Bill, Trump is the king of negotiators and thats proven by Mexicos concession already this morning. His methods may appear madness but I for one give him benefit of the doubt. He is definitely the man for the times.
Ah yes, the “𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝘀, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝘁” argument. Classic.
So, Mexico made a concession this morning? Fantastic. Just like they did six years ago when Trump pulled this exact same stunt. Remember that? No? Of course not. Because if you did, you’d realize this isn’t some masterclass in negotiation—it’s just reruns of a bad reality show.
Let’s go over what actually happened last time:
1. Trump threatened tariffs on Mexico.
2. Mexico put some troops on the border.
3. Trump claimed victory.
4. Border crossings eventually went back up.
But sure, let’s pretend this time is different. Let’s pretend that threatening trade wars is an actual long-term solution and not just a way to create a temporary headline.
His methods may appear madness? No, no—𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. It’s just using economic self-harm as a negotiation tactic. It’s like refusing to eat until your neighbor mows their lawn. Sure, maybe they’ll do it to shut you up, but you’re still the one sitting there hungry.
But hey, keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this time, magically, tariffs won’t raise prices, supply chains won’t get wrecked, and Mexico will suddenly take permanent responsibility for America’s border issues. Or, more likely, we’ll be right back here in a few years, hearing the same people say “Trust the plan.”
Lucas just to refresh your memory, when Trump was president we had no border problem. He in fact stopped it cold and started building the wall. After Biden stole the election and dismantled everything Trump had in place, mass unrestricted fence jumping started and never stopped for 4 years.
Oh, this is rich. "𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽." No problem at all! It was solved! Completely stopped cold! I mean, sure, record border crossings happened in 2019, but let’s just pretend that never happened. Let’s also ignore that Trump’s own DHS Secretary called it a crisis at the time.
But no, no—according to this guy, Trump waved a magic wand, the wall built itself, and suddenly no one even thought about crossing the border. Meanwhile, in reality, migrants were still coming, cartels were still smuggling, and border states were still dealing with the same problems they always had.
Then we get the "𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴" routine. Ah yes, the eternal fallback—because why engage with facts when you can just hit the greatest hits playlist of 2020? It’s like arguing about climate change and suddenly screaming "Benghazi!"
And let’s be honest—if a policy is so fragile that a single election can completely reverse it overnight, then maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t the permanent, foolproof solution you think it was. Because if Trump 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 fixed the border, why did it all collapse so quickly? Shouldn’t a 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 system be harder to dismantle than flipping a few executive orders?
Here’s the thing—border security is complicated. It doesn’t get solved with tariffs, tweets, or walls alone. If Trump’s approach actually worked long-term, we wouldn’t be right back here arguing about it all over again.
But sure, keep telling yourself that the problem magically disappeared for four years and only returned because Biden walked into the White House and personally invited everyone in. Reality says otherwise—but, hey, reality has never been a strong suit for this argument.
Lucas, I feel sorry for hopeless people like you.
Ah, yes—when all else fails, when facts don’t cooperate, just default to faux sympathy. “I feel sorry for you.”
What a spectacular way to avoid an actual discussion. Not a rebuttal, not a counterpoint—just a vague, self-satisfied attempt to shut the conversation down while pretending to take the high road.
I mean, if I’m so hopeless, then why did you even bother replying? If my argument was so weak, surely dismantling it would have been easy? Instead, you skipped the whole debate and went straight for pity.
That’s not an argument. That’s concession with extra steps.
So, let’s make it easy for you:
If Trump really fixed the border, why did crossings hit record highs in 2019?
If his policies were so strong, why did they collapse the second he left office?
And if your best response to these questions is “I feel sorry for you,” then maybe—just maybe—you don’t actually have an answer.
But hey, I get it. Facts are inconvenient. It’s easier to pity someone than to admit you might not have the airtight argument you thought you did.
So go ahead—keep feeling sorry for me. I’ll stick to reality.
I will.
"Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand." from "Cool Hand Luke" (1967). Fact is, at this point, we have nothing to lose. Might as well throw our remaining weight around and share the discomfort.
Oh wow. "We have nothing to lose." That is an absolutely brilliant strategy—if you’re a guy in a bar fight who’s already unconscious.
Let’s be real. The "nothing to lose" mindset only makes sense if you’re already completely bankrupt, out of options, and have zero leverage left. The U.S. is still the largest economy in the world. It has plenty to lose. Higher prices, slower growth, damaged trade relationships, retaliatory tariffs—none of this is just "discomfort." It’s self-inflicted damage.
And "share the discomfort"? What is this, economic socialism? I thought the whole point was that America should win at trade, not drag everyone down just for the sake of it.
Also, let’s talk about "throwing our remaining weight around." You only get to do that if people still respect your weight. If the U.S. keeps slapping tariffs on allies and screwing up global trade, other countries aren’t going to bow down—they’re just going to move on. Trade deals with China, the EU, India, and South America are happening without the U.S. And if this continues, America isn’t "throwing its weight around"—it’s just throwing a tantrum while the rest of the world stops listening.
So yeah, "Sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand"—but not when you’re the guy holding a royal flush and deciding to fold just to make a point.
um, it was a figure of speech in the vein of "let's try this", since we have gotten NOWHERE with Mehico since the 60s except having to take a third of their population off their hands. As far as moving on, isn't that what we all do? Last I looked, the calendar changes at midnight. Best always. PM
I'm just gonna put his disparaging, ignorant ass on ignore...
Ah yes, the “I’m taking my ball and going home” move. Because nothing says intellectual dominance like announcing to the room that you refuse to hear opposing views while making sure everyone knows you’re doing it.
Let’s break this down. If I was so “ignorant” and so “disparaging,” you’d think this would be easy to refute. Right? I mean, if my argument was that bad, why not just dismantle it piece by piece? Show me where I’m wrong. Give me facts. Prove your point.
Oh, but no. Instead, we get “I’m ignoring you!”—which is the online equivalent of a kid plugging their ears and yelling ‘LA LA LA’ really loudly. It’s not a debate tactic, it’s an admission of defeat wrapped in faux superiority.
And let’s be honest—we all know he’s still reading. Nobody makes a grand exit speech unless they want people to notice. If you really didn’t care, you’d just stop engaging. But no, instead, we get this big dramatic sendoff like it’s the end of a soap opera episode.
So, enjoy “ignoring” me—just try not to strain yourself peeking through your fingers while you do it.
Ah, yes, the classic “It was just a figure of speech” defense. Because nothing says I had a strong argument like immediately backpedaling into “Well, I didn’t mean it literally.”
So let’s unpack this. The claim is that the U.S. has "gotten nowhere" with Mexico since the 60s. Now, I assume this doesn’t include the trillions of dollars in trade, the millions of jobs that exist because of supply chains across the border, or the fact that Mexico is one of the U.S.’s largest trading partners. No, no, apparently, "nowhere" means not getting exactly what we want, exactly when we want it.
And then we get “having to take a third of their population off their hands.” Oh, is that how immigration works? Countries just offload people like they’re dumping old furniture at the curb? By that logic, shouldn’t the U.S. be demanding a refund for all the economic contributions made by Mexican immigrants? Or does that part conveniently not count?
And then—“As far as moving on, isn’t that what we all do? Last I looked, the calendar changes at midnight.” Ah yes, the time exists, therefore things change argument. Brilliant. By this logic, I suppose the only reason the Cold War ended was because the clock struck twelve and everyone just decided to move on.
Look, if the real argument is “we should try something different”, then fine, let’s talk about actual solutions. But “we have nothing to lose” is not a strategy—it’s an excuse. And “let’s just try this” is great… unless “this” is setting yourself on fire and calling it a heating solution.
Yes He is a man of our times. But can He see far enough into the future to say what I am doing is good?
Don, no man can see the future and thats a good thing.
This is the actual issue: conjecture vs. surety. The whole point of Bonner's "Dominant Trend" idea is making informed/best conjectures. Connect the dots properly, and you think you see what's coming. That's preferable, mentally, to most people than doing nothing and bobbing around like a cork on the ocean's surface, right? Otherwise, futility enters in and then, suddenly, what's the use? Best always. PM
Ah yes, the classic "It's better to do *something* than nothing!" argument—because when has blind action ever gone wrong?
This is basically saying, "Sure, we don’t *know* tariffs will work, but doing nothing is worse, right?" Right… except, if your best guess at a solution actively makes things worse, maybe doing nothing isn’t the worst option. If you’re lost in the woods, and your *conjecture* is to sprint full speed in a random direction, congratulations—you just ran yourself deeper into the forest.
And let’s talk about conjecture vs. surety. Connecting the dots *properly* sounds great, but what happens when you start connecting dots that don’t actually go together? That’s how we get people convinced that raising taxes on butter will stop drug smuggling.
Yes, people prefer to *feel* like they’re in control rather than just bobbing around like a cork. But here’s the thing—if the water is full of sharks, maybe bobbing for a bit is smarter than thrashing around and bleeding everywhere.
So then history is the best teacher, or am I out in left field beyond the ball park?
Certainly a factor, but what two individuals see history the same way? Some people deny the Holocaust. Others want to tear down monuments. Best always. PM
Yes I understand that history is generally written by the "winners", I guess We choose the one that best suits our ideals.
You are completely correct in one aspect: human nature is a constant; so, history is essentially a reflection of that. You won't get a match, but you will get a rhyme. Best always. PM
Have acquaintances that work at Ford Motor company and when we discussed the 100% tariff on the China electric vehicles they told me that even w/ 100% tariffs they would still undersell us for what we can make them. I have to believe that free trade is better just as is free will. A captive market is what anyone would want but human nature is always to find a better way. One of the wealthiest men from Minnesota, Curt Carlson, started the Gold Bond stamps and changed marketing. I was fascinated by one of his mantra's as I a younger man learning about business "There must be a better way find it". It sounds so simple but it is indeed how the world works.
The great thing about free trade is it forces win win deals for if there is no value then there is no trade!
Finally, a response grounded in reality.
This actually gets to the real issue—China’s manufacturing costs are so low that even with a 100% tariff, their EVs could still be cheaper than American-made ones. That’s not because of some secret conspiracy, it’s because China has mastered large-scale, cost-efficient production. Blocking their cars with tariffs doesn’t suddenly make American EVs better or cheaper—it just forces consumers to pay more for fewer options.
The real solution? Innovation, efficiency, and competing on quality. And that’s where the "There must be a better way, find it" mantra actually applies. Protectionism is not finding a better way—it’s artificially propping up industries instead of making them truly competitive. The auto industry didn’t survive by blocking Japanese imports—it adapted. It innovated. It had to get better.
And that last point is key: Free trade works because both sides benefit. If they don’t, there’s no deal. That’s what makes it sustainable. Tariffs, on the other hand, just distort the market, create inefficiencies, and end up being a tax on the very people they claim to help.
So yes, find the better way. But that way isn’t blocking competition—it’s rising to meet it.
"39 of the nation’s leading economists"
Pretty lame, Bill.
Any other day you'd be trashing the opinions of those same economists.
Well, that didn't age well Bill. Bill always has good insights, but has blinders on such that ALL he sees is basic economics and trade, as if the world is full of only honest people. There are problems that need to be solved (drugs, human trafficking, violence) that *sometimes* require solutions that go against the basic economics. Trump threatened a disruption of the trade that honest people want in order to get those people to agree to deal with some difficult problems. Now Mexico has agreed to do exactly that. Widen your gaze a bit Bill, Trump had you snookered on this one.
Excellent points except the comment that "Bill always has good insights". I would say that only occasionally does Bonner have good insights
Oh, this is classic. "Well, that didn’t age well, Bill!" Yeah, because clearly, every complex geopolitical issue is solved within a week, right?
So let’s break this down. First, we get the usual “Bill just doesn’t understand the bigger picture” argument. Right, okay. Because the real problem isn’t that tariffs make things more expensive, disrupt supply chains, and trigger retaliatory trade wars—it’s that Bill refuses to acknowledge that the world is full of bad people. Got it.
Then we get the “Trump had to break the rules of economics to fix the real issues” argument. Ah, of course. The old “Sometimes you’ve got to do something completely counterproductive to solve a problem” approach. It’s like saying, “I can’t stop my house from flooding, so I’ve set fire to it instead.” Brilliant.
And now we’re celebrating because Mexico agreed to something—again. Just like they did six years ago. So what exactly happened last time? Oh right, they put some troops on the border, numbers dipped briefly, then went right back up. But sure, let’s pretend this time is different.
At the end of the day, this argument is basically “Trump knew better than the economists, tariffs are actually a secret negotiating tool, and Bill just doesn’t get it.” Right. Or—and hear me out—maybe this is just another case of using an economic sledgehammer to solve a problem that requires actual policy and cooperation. But hey, let’s all celebrate that Mexico agreed to another short-term stunt while the actual issues remain exactly where they were.
OK, now Canada has also agreed to increase drug interdiction and border security. Your head is in a place where the view isn't so good. Take a look at what you might call abusive negotiation, but it seems to be achieving the intended results without months of political doublespeak and no action (aka the Biden administration).
Ah, so now Canada’s onboard too? Well, fantastic. Because if there’s one thing history has taught us, it’s that short-term, reactionary agreements under economic threat always lead to long-term stability.
But let’s take a step back. The claim here is that bullying works—that throwing tariffs around like a sledgehammer is better than diplomacy because, hey, it forces people to act right now. Sure. But let’s ask the real question: what happens when the pressure is off?
Mexico sent troops to the border six years ago under the exact same circumstances. What happened? A temporary drop in crossings, a political victory lap, and then... back to normal. Why? Because actual enforcement and policy reform require long-term planning, not just reactive gestures to dodge tariffs.
And let’s not forget the bigger picture: the rest of the world is watching. This isn’t some brilliant long-term strategy—it’s a short-term shakedown that makes allies hesitant to trust the U.S. in future negotiations. Because here’s the thing: nobody likes dealing with an unstable trade partner. Countries don’t want to be in a position where their economy can be held hostage on a whim.
So yeah, Canada and Mexico are playing along—for now. But what’s the actual cost of these kinds of tactics?
- It erodes trust with allies who now know the U.S. is willing to throw trade into chaos to get what it wants.
- It pushes countries to seek alternative partners (hello, China, the EU, India—literally anyone else).
- It creates a reputation of unpredictability, which means that next time the U.S. actually needs cooperation, the first reaction won’t be negotiation—it’ll be hesitation.
Look, if the goal was better border security and stopping drug flow, there were smarter ways to do it—like using existing trade agreements to enforce compliance over time, rather than threatening to blow up the economic relationship overnight. This isn’t some masterclass in negotiation—it’s just fomenting chaos and calling it strategy.
And while the U.S. is busy shaking down its neighbors, the rest of the world is taking notes. Some are keeping their distance. Others? Well, they’re probably just waiting for their turn to kiss the ring—or at least pretend to, until they can move on.
You are conflating trade agreements, which happen between governments, and actual trade, which happens between companies and individuals (excepting government procurement of course). In this particular case, Trump wants action on border security and fentanyl, and these other countries are saying "Not our problem". How would you go about getting their attention when you believe they in fact can help with our problem if properly motivated? You need leverage to get them motivated. Negotiation isn't going to get you anywhere. A pain point will.
Ah, my friend, you say we need a pain point.
Very well. Let us discuss pain.
You see, pain alone is not leverage. Any brute can cause pain. A child with a stick can cause pain. A bad swordsman swinging wildly can cause pain. But leverage—true leverage—is about knowing where to apply force so that the pain leads to compliance, not resentment.
You think tariffs are a masterstroke of negotiation. But I must ask:
What happens when the pain stops?
👉 Mexico sent troops to the border six years ago. A brief pause. A brief victory lap. And then? Back to normal.
👉 Canada agrees to ramp up drug enforcement. But does this mean Canada has suddenly declared war on fentanyl production? Or does it mean they pretend to care just long enough to get the tariffs lifted?
👉 And most importantly: What do these countries learn from this? That the U.S. is a partner to be trusted? No. They learn the U.S. is a bully to be tolerated until the next time they feel the need to push back.
This is not leverage. This is short-term coercion. It does not build compliance—it builds resistance.
And what does the U.S. get in return?
📌 A reputation for unpredictability. Trade partners hesitate to engage because they never know when they’ll be the next target.
📌 A slow erosion of trust. Because once countries know the U.S. negotiates with a sledgehammer, they start looking elsewhere—China, India, the EU.
📌 A pattern where Mexico and Canada will play along for now—but the second they see an opportunity to align with a more stable trade partner, they take it.
So, my friend, I ask you:
Do you want short-term compliance? Or do you want long-term results?
Because if all you seek is a temporary flinch, then yes—by all means, keep swinging your sword wildly.
But if you seek true leverage, you must apply force where it creates lasting cooperation—not just temporary obedience.
Otherwise, you are not negotiating.
You are simply waiting for your turn to be outplayed.
Lucas - you realize you're not supposed to upvote your own posts, right?
Right??
I think I'm just going to sit and watch for awhile Bill.
The 39 economists say tariffs are a bad idea... the same economists would argue against sound money, hate gold and laud our federal reserve controlled (supposedly) credit based economy. Is it really a free trade world when we are the only ones practicing it.
Bill, I think I'm just going to sit and watch for awhile... what is hasn't been working so well so I'll remain open to some other ideas.
One idea I have is How to "fix" this . I do not have any answers, maybe You do ?
If American workers have to compete with global slave labor where wages are as low as $5 dollars a day, almost nothing will be made in America ever again. A truly free and level playing field would include open boarders where human capital can migrate to wherever the wages are highest. I think we need protectionism right now to help dismantle globalist power over our sovereignty. May not look pretty but is necessary right now to recapture control over our destiny. For example, Panama can not hand control of the canal we built and gifted them to China.
Yes, but open borders assures the lowest common denominator prevails. If everyone must have everything, no one will have anything. We have forestalled this result via deficit spending, but the day of reckoning is now at hand. Best always. PM
Hi Paul -
I think mass deportations and a locked-down Border may actually forestall the moment of Reckoning - at least for a little while.
We both agree the Reckoning is, eventually, unavoidable...
I'm with you, Bro. Best always. PM
If I may just add , is what You want a necessity or just a want. Necessities of life come first. Other things as and when is appropriate. Just My view of having to learn the hard way on many an instant.
Ah yes, the idea that protectionism is the only way to stop the race to the bottom. Because nothing says economic strength like making everything more expensive while pretending global supply chains don’t exist.
Let’s start with the first claim: If American workers have to compete with global slave labor, nothing will be made in America again. Except… that’s already been happening for decades, and guess what? America still makes a lot of things—just not the same things it made in 1950. Manufacturing jobs shifted to high-tech, advanced industries because, surprise, the U.S. isn’t competitive in mass-producing cheap T-shirts and plastic toys. That’s not a bad thing—it’s called progress.
Then we get the “truly free and level playing field” argument. Yes, if we really wanted pure free-market competition, borders would be open, and people could move freely to where wages are best. But wait—wasn’t the whole point of protectionism to stop cheap labor from coming in? So which is it? Free-market wages or protectionism? You can’t complain about cheap foreign labor while also blocking foreign workers from coming here to demand better pay.
And then we hit the big finale: We need protectionism to dismantle globalist power over our sovereignty. Ah, right, because the real problem isn’t economic efficiency or competitiveness—it’s shadowy globalist forces pulling the strings. This is the part where everything goes from economics to conspiracy theory.
Then we get the Panama Canal curveball—because what even is an argument about U.S. tariffs without suddenly bringing up China? Yes, China is involved in infrastructure deals worldwide. But let’s not pretend the U.S. was “tricked” into giving up the Panama Canal. The U.S. built the canal in 1914, but it was always understood that it sat on Panama’s land. By the late 1970s, the U.S. agreed to return full control to Panama, and in 1999, that transfer was completed. Now, people are upset that Panama has made business deals with China involving the canal, as if the U.S. still owns it. But that’s like Britain complaining that they used to control the original 13 American colonies, so they should have a say in how the U.S. runs its affairs today. It’s history—times change, sovereignty shifts, and countries make their own economic choices.
So here’s the real question: What’s actually the goal? Because protectionism isn’t some noble mission to reclaim sovereignty—it’s just a tax on consumers that makes certain industries artificially profitable while everyone else pays more. If that’s the plan, fine, but let’s not pretend it’s some grand patriotic crusade. It’s just another way to pick economic winners and losers.
All you Bonner haters have done it now. You've pissed him off enough that he's let loose an exceptionally annoying bot into the forum. Nice going.😉
Really? I hadn't noticed.
LMAO...
What a simplistic load of codswallop Bill. I expect better. You throw in a few small truths to cover up the bigger picture. Here in Australia being a much smaller country, we've seen the folly of trying to compete with countries that pay workers $3 an hour. That's not "free" trade. It has cost us nearly all of our manufacturing industries and put our country into welfare dependency and enormous debt. We, like you, were once an independent sovereign nation that took pride in itself and its people, but now we are a mish mash of disparate races, who don't get on, overly dependent on drugs and welfare. All because some well intentioned idealogue from the Left [John Button & co.]thought it would be a great idea to outsource our work and our national identity, to Asia, because they don't have a great welfare state and free everything. Free trade destroyed our way of life so we could buy cheaper T.V's. I wish we had an Australian leader that loved his country as much as Trump obviously loves his.
Oh wow, this has everything—economic collapse, cultural doom, national identity crisis, and of course, if only we had a leader like Trump!
Alright, let’s take this apart. First, we get free trade destroyed Australia’s way of life. Really? Because last I checked, Australia consistently ranks as one of the wealthiest, highest-living-standard countries in the world. If free trade was the apocalypse you’re describing, Australia should look like the set of Mad Max by now. Instead, it has a higher GDP per capita than the UK, Germany, and Canada. You can’t say free trade ruined us while also living in a country where the biggest problem for most people is how to afford their third overseas vacation.
Then we get the paying workers three bucks an hour isn’t free trade argument. That part is fair—trade isn’t always perfectly balanced. But let’s be real, the alternative isn’t some magical return to 1950s industrial dominance where everyone works a stable factory job and drives a Holden with a kangaroo in the backseat. Manufacturing has declined in every developed country, not just Australia. Why? Because economies evolve. That’s why nobody’s out here demanding that Australia take back the global steam engine market.
Then we hit the we used to be a proud, sovereign nation, now we’re a mishmash of disparate races who don’t get along line. Oh boy. That’s the part where the economic argument goes straight into the gutter. Yes, Australia has changed. So has literally every other country on the planet. But acting like diversity is the cause of economic decline instead of, I don’t know, bad policy choices, underinvestment, and shifting global trends is just lazy thinking. It’s like blaming the thermostat for the weather.
And finally, the we need a leader like Trump moment. Because, of course, if only Australia had a leader who slapped tariffs on everything, added trillions to the national debt, and forced farmers into massive government bailouts, then everything would be fine. Never mind the fact that his trade war with China hurt American manufacturing more than it helped. None of that matters, because at least he loved his country, right?
At the end of the day, Australia’s economic challenges aren’t because of free trade alone, and they definitely aren’t because of immigration. The world changes, industries shift, and successful countries adapt. Blaming the entire problem on trade is like blaming umbrellas for the rain.
Try again. I didn't say Oz isn't wealthy. We are because we sell all the good stuff in the ground to China and others so they can prosper. We look good on paper because houses cost over a $1million and cars almost as much. GDP looks good. Debt is over
$1trillion from $zero on 2007. Ask any local that isn't straight out of high school if he feels better off now, or when we weren't so "diverse". Ask a Jew in Western Sydney. Should look like Mad Max? Depends where you look. Spend a week in Wadeye. Wake up to yourself. Free trade is one factor but it was just a response to Bill's claptrap on the subject.
Alright mate, let’s grab a drink and talk about this like human beings instead of hurling economic stats at each other like bricks.
I hear you. Not in some “𝐩𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞-𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞” kind of way, but really—I get it. You’re not saying Australia isn’t rich. You’re saying 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. Fair point. Anyone who’s paying attention knows there’s a 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝.
Here in Canada, we’re seeing it too. In cities across the country—especially out west—𝐰𝐞’𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞. Desperation, drug addiction, crime—𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝟏𝟎 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞. And when people say, “𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞,” I don’t think they’re just being nostalgic—I think they’re reacting to something real.
But let’s talk about 𝐰𝐡𝐲 life feels tougher, because I don’t think “diversity” is the enemy here. You said yourself—Australia’s got 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭, 𝐬𝐤𝐲𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, and wages that aren’t keeping up. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐠𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐧. That’s 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐮𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.
I won’t argue that free trade is perfect. But what’s the alternative? 𝐒𝐡𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧? 𝐏𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞? You can’t just will Australia back to 1965. The world doesn’t work like that.
And look, I get why people bring up Trump. He’s got that whole "𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧" thing going. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐇𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐬, 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬. You know who ended up paying for that? 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. It’s always regular people.
So yeah, 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭. And yeah, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠. But let’s not pretend the cause is 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 free trade or 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 immigration. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐳𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫. The real answer? 𝐖𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡.
I’ve heard wonderful stories about Australia, and one day I’ll come ashore myself.
So, what do you want? A time machine, or an actual plan? Because 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬.