1
U.S.
Elizabeth Warren Takes Aim at Moderates and Generates Chants of ‘Warren 2020’
In a speech to a Netroots Nation meeting, Warren says liberals are “the heart and soul” of the Democratic Party, but still calls for unity.Party building.
2
Fashion & Style
Katrina Valdes, Joseph Bishop IV
The bride and groom attended George Washington University at the same time, but didn’t meet until after both had graduated.Sooner is better. As soon as you can is best.
3
Opinion
Charlottesville and the Bigotocracy
It is disheartening for black folk to see such a vile and despicable replay of history.Yes but.
This was an attempt to defend the legitimacy of the civil war.
The Civil War had no legitimacy.
4
Podcasts
‘Dear Sugars’: Should I Intervene?
The Sugars, along with the writer Meghan Daum, answer letters from people who see loved ones heading down the wrong path, but worry intervention might be the wrong move.I have no idea.
The Sugars approve of intervention.
First the baby then the wife?
5
Fashion & Style
Two Worldviews Meet in the Middle
The couple met at a Kentucky Derby party in 2014.Sooner is better. As soon as you can is best.
6
Business Day
Trade Commission Will Hear Solar Tariff Case, and Nafta Talks Begin
American affiliates of solar equipment manufacturers try to counteract low import prices. Negotiations between the United States, Canada and Mexico are likely to be tense." Mar 31 10:13 am
Of Tweets And Trade
Is anything ever going to happen on trade, Trump’s signature issue other than immigration? As Matt Yglesias notes, so far almost nothing has. Bloomberg tells us that companies are back to the usual business of moving jobs to Mexico,
after a brief hiatus — unclear whether there was any real pause, or
just a pause in announcements, but in any case CEOs seem to have decided
that NAFTA isn’t under much threat.
True, Trump is tweeting threats
about the China trade, and maybe something big will happen after
Mar-a-Lago. But that gets us to the question, is Trump actually in a
position to pursue the trade issue in any serious way?
My answer is probably not — except as a move taken out of political desperation.
The starting point for
any such discussion has to be the observation that during the campaign,
when Trump talked trade, he had no idea what he was talking about — no
more than he did on health care, or taxes, or coal, or …. Specifically,
Trump seemed to have two false ideas in mind:
1. Existing trade agreements are obviously and bigly unfair to the United States, putting us at a disadvantage.
2. Restricting trade would be good for America and bad for foreigners, so the threat of protectionism gives us lots of leverage.
Now, reality: if you
look for the obvious giveaways in NAFTA, which the US can demand be
redressed, you won’t find them. NAFTA brought down most trade barriers
between us and Mexico; there wasn’t any marked asymmetry. In fact, since
Mexican tariffs were higher to start with, in effect Mexico made more
concessions than we did (although we were giving access to a bigger
market.) China is a bit more complicated — arguably the Chinese
effectively evade some WTO rules. But even there it’s not obvious what
you would demand from a new agreement.
Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago — but isn’t now.
What about the effects
of protectionism? Leave aside Econ 101 gains from trade, and let’s just
talk about business interests. The fact is that modern international
trade creates interdependence in a way that old-fashioned trade didn’t;
stuff you export is often produced with a lot of imported components,
stuff you import often indirectly includes a lot of your own exports.
Here’s the domestic share of value added in transport equipment:
When we buy autos from
Mexico, only about half the value added is Mexican, with most of the
rest coming from the US — so if you restrict those imports, a lot of
U.S. production workers will be hurt. If we restrict imports of
components from Mexico, we’re going to raise the costs of U.S. producers
who export to other markets; again, a lot of U.S. jobs will be hit. So
even if you completely ignore the effects on consumers, protectionist
policies would produce many losers in the U.S. industrial sector.
And Trump can’t ignore
consumer interests, either; if nothing else, Walmart employs 1.5
million people in America, i.e., 30 times the total number of US coal
miners.
So any attempt on
Trump’s part to get real about trade will run into fierce opposition,
not from the kind of people his supporters love to hate, but from major
business interests. Is he really ready for that?
So far, at least, the
Trump trade agenda, such as it is, has involved tweeting at companies,
telling them to keep jobs here, then claiming credit for any seemingly
job-creating actions they take. And that got him a couple of favorable
news cycles. In practice, however, it means little or nothing. And even
tweet-and-photo-op policy seems to be fading out: companies that might
have wanted to help Trump puff himself up a couple of months ago are
likely to be a lot less accommodating to Mr. Can’t-Pass-A-Health-Billl,
with his 36 percent approval rating.
All of this suggests
that on trade, as on everything else substantive, Trumpism is going to
be all huffing and puffing with very little to show for it. But there is
one observation that gives me pause — namely, Trump’s growing need to
find some way to change the subject away from his administration’s death
spiral. Domestic policy is stalled; the Russia story is getting closer
by the day; even Republicans are starting to lose their fear of standing
up to the man they not-so-secretly despise. What’s he going to do?
Well, the classic
answer of collapsing juntas is the Malvinas solution: rally the nation
by creating a foreign confrontation of some kind. Usually this involves a
shooting war; but maybe a trade war would serve the same purpose.
In other words, never
mind economic nationalism and all that. If Trump does do something
drastic on trade, it won’t be driven by his economic theories, it will
be driven by his plunging approval rating."
7
Style
Trump Tower, a Home for Celebrities and Charlatans
Michael Jackson lived in Donald J. Trump’s gleaming Midtown edifice. So have gamblers, a disgraced dictator, a Ponzi schemer and a stock huckster.Know Trump by his friends.
8
Business Day
A Quirky Flavored-Water Brand Tries to Grow Up
Bai Brands had great success after its offbeat Super Bowl ad starring Christopher Walken and Justin Timberlake. But can it replicate that victory while striving for a more mature tone?Pure fashion.
9
Times Insider
‘For Once, No One Was Upset. Truth Works.’
Our Top 10 Comments of the Week: Readers debate truth in subway announcements, North Korea and what to say when people ask why you don’t have kids.Age shows.
10
U.S.
In South Texas, Threat of Border Wall Unites Naturalists and Politicians
The proposed wall, not yet funded, would slice through private property, including refuges for butterflies and wildlife.The madness of the Republican party has been contagious.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment