I find it amusing how Fox News is running old clips of Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders arguing FOR protectionism and tariffs years ago. They are obviously doing this to try and "expose" Democrats as hypocritcs (as if that is breaking news). But this also means Fox is actively telling their audience that Trump's economic plan is a old, outdated left wing Democratic plan. And their audience is too stupid to understand the irony.
Well, I took Pres Trump seriously AND literally back when, and I am a 'commoner' with no big degree in anything really. BUT, I can read between the lines quite well. I'm concerned with listening to the experts, as you state John- Musk and Peter Navarro are at odds on the tariffs plan to the umph degree- both advising our President. This is so dicey and dangerous, and should not be happening. A train wreck? The whole planet is pissed off and angry, but besides, this all may be a total flop for the USA.
The problem with Afghanistan is that the mission parameters and goals kept changing with no defined win condition.
Over the years we lost sight of the mission.
Which kept the US and allies in a quagmire for more than a decade because the leadership, both military and political, couldn't decide if they should be killing terrorists or embarking on a nation building exercise that was doomed to fail.
In the end, all the blood and treasure and sacrifice was lost for naught. Because today Afghanistan is arguably in a worse state than when the US and the "coalition of the willing" entered it back in 2001.
It's like we never learnt a thing from history even though the Russians attempted the same thing decades before with the same result.
What's worse is that we'd seen this movie before in Vietnam. Many of the mistakes made in Vietnam were repeated and doubled down on in Afghanistan. The biggest differences of course were a) the casualty count in Vietnam was MUCH higher than Afghanistan, despite the Afghan conflict lasting twice as long, and b) We were attacked directly by a terror group being actively supported by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, while we were never attacked or in any direct danger from Vietnam.
Some years ago, a certain politician made a remark about a controversial bill saying, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." The concept was clear, in my mind, that politicians can and will pass all manner of convoluted legislation because they sound good, not really knowing or even caring about the specific results. Maybe now is a good time to try a new phrase, "We have to increase the deficit, debt, taxes and spending to find out how much were saving!"
John, what’s your take on the SAVE Act. A Gallup poll shows 84% of Americans want voter ID in our elections. Yet every Dem in House voted against the majority of their constituents on it. You can’t be a legal, residing, citizen in this country, and live and function in our society, without a valid ID. Why is having one to vote an issue. What am I missing here.
I just relistened to your interview of Brian Riedl (I will refer to the name based upon the timing of your interview) pertaining to something I am not sure what the point of this interview was. A few questions I would like to ask if I was to interview him.
Is it wise in our debt-ridden society to raise the interest rate on Treasury notes, bills, and bonds? And what would be the downside if we didn't?
What experience do you have besides a well-rounded education and being a Washington insider? Did you ever build a factory in a country and pay the bribes to do business there?
Do you believe when we instituted income tax it was a penalty against producers?
Would you be supportive of programs in the USA that gave manufacturers free land, buildings, energy, non-regulatory interference, nearly free labor like some other countries?
Do you support free trade with countries that have contributed absolutely nothing in technology and human improvement but Soley reproducing American products at a cheaper cost? Can you name some great innovations that have come out of these countries?
Should America provide free trade to a Communist regime in which 60,000 Americans lost their life we can have high priced sneakers?
Another brilliant CNBC economist made the statement that if MId-America "believes they will ever see tool-and-die manufacturing back, are dreaming". What do you think of this? And do you agree with it?
I am not smart enough to know the questions to ask an economist such as Riedl. But I believe John that a much more interesting interview would have been some tough questions other than a nice cozy conversation.
I find it amusing how Fox News is running old clips of Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders arguing FOR protectionism and tariffs years ago. They are obviously doing this to try and "expose" Democrats as hypocritcs (as if that is breaking news). But this also means Fox is actively telling their audience that Trump's economic plan is a old, outdated left wing Democratic plan. And their audience is too stupid to understand the irony.
Well, I took Pres Trump seriously AND literally back when, and I am a 'commoner' with no big degree in anything really. BUT, I can read between the lines quite well. I'm concerned with listening to the experts, as you state John- Musk and Peter Navarro are at odds on the tariffs plan to the umph degree- both advising our President. This is so dicey and dangerous, and should not be happening. A train wreck? The whole planet is pissed off and angry, but besides, this all may be a total flop for the USA.
I like the clear thoughts of a fellow commoner!
Great piece John. An engrossing spot on take.
The problem with Afghanistan is that the mission parameters and goals kept changing with no defined win condition.
Over the years we lost sight of the mission.
Which kept the US and allies in a quagmire for more than a decade because the leadership, both military and political, couldn't decide if they should be killing terrorists or embarking on a nation building exercise that was doomed to fail.
In the end, all the blood and treasure and sacrifice was lost for naught. Because today Afghanistan is arguably in a worse state than when the US and the "coalition of the willing" entered it back in 2001.
It's like we never learnt a thing from history even though the Russians attempted the same thing decades before with the same result.
What's the definition of Insanity again?
What's worse is that we'd seen this movie before in Vietnam. Many of the mistakes made in Vietnam were repeated and doubled down on in Afghanistan. The biggest differences of course were a) the casualty count in Vietnam was MUCH higher than Afghanistan, despite the Afghan conflict lasting twice as long, and b) We were attacked directly by a terror group being actively supported by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, while we were never attacked or in any direct danger from Vietnam.
We as a country are $37 trillion in debt. That is the reason for the tariffs and DOGE! It’s now or never
None of this will bring down the debt. Spending is UP under Trump, not down.
Trump and MAGA pundits are lying to you. The economists aren't.
Some years ago, a certain politician made a remark about a controversial bill saying, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." The concept was clear, in my mind, that politicians can and will pass all manner of convoluted legislation because they sound good, not really knowing or even caring about the specific results. Maybe now is a good time to try a new phrase, "We have to increase the deficit, debt, taxes and spending to find out how much were saving!"
Well, Nancy Pelosi said that.
So I guess I’m supposed to take the significant drop in my 401k seriously… but not literally? Is that how it goes?
John, what’s your take on the SAVE Act. A Gallup poll shows 84% of Americans want voter ID in our elections. Yet every Dem in House voted against the majority of their constituents on it. You can’t be a legal, residing, citizen in this country, and live and function in our society, without a valid ID. Why is having one to vote an issue. What am I missing here.
I just relistened to your interview of Brian Riedl (I will refer to the name based upon the timing of your interview) pertaining to something I am not sure what the point of this interview was. A few questions I would like to ask if I was to interview him.
Is it wise in our debt-ridden society to raise the interest rate on Treasury notes, bills, and bonds? And what would be the downside if we didn't?
What experience do you have besides a well-rounded education and being a Washington insider? Did you ever build a factory in a country and pay the bribes to do business there?
Do you believe when we instituted income tax it was a penalty against producers?
Would you be supportive of programs in the USA that gave manufacturers free land, buildings, energy, non-regulatory interference, nearly free labor like some other countries?
Do you support free trade with countries that have contributed absolutely nothing in technology and human improvement but Soley reproducing American products at a cheaper cost? Can you name some great innovations that have come out of these countries?
Should America provide free trade to a Communist regime in which 60,000 Americans lost their life we can have high priced sneakers?
Another brilliant CNBC economist made the statement that if MId-America "believes they will ever see tool-and-die manufacturing back, are dreaming". What do you think of this? And do you agree with it?
I am not smart enough to know the questions to ask an economist such as Riedl. But I believe John that a much more interesting interview would have been some tough questions other than a nice cozy conversation.
>>I am not sure what the point of this interview was.
To analyze the economic policies and arguments being made at the time by the presidential candidates.
>>A few questions I would like to ask if I was to interview him.
Riedl's contact info is right here: https://manhattan.institute/person/jessica-riedl
Have at it.
>>But I believe John that a much more interesting interview would have been some tough questions other than a nice cozy conversation.
Next time Riedl and I talk, I'll be sure to try and draw tears.