Archives for category: Economy

Robert Hubbell is a level-headed guy who follows the news closely and calls things by their rightful name. He writes an immensely popular blog.

In this post, he says we are currently experiencing a coup, engineered by Trump and Musk. They are seizing control of every Department and agency, ousting loyal career officials and politicizing nonpolitical agencies, like the FBI. The news media reports the events as news stories. Hubbell puts it all together. It’s a coup.

He writes:

On Friday, January 31, 2025, Trump moved to complete the coup he began on January 6, 2021. Trump failed the first time, and he will fail again—because he has underestimated the American people. We must steel ourselves because things will get worse before they get better–but they will get better. It is a fool’s bet to assume that the American people will sit idly by as their freedoms are stolen by a corrupt oligarch and a convicted felon destroying the government to promote their selfish interests.

Speaking the truth about what is happening is difficult and unpleasant. Hearing the truth is also difficult and unpleasant. But the longer we fail to recognize the current situation for what it is—a slow-rolling coup attempt—the longer it will take for us to recover….

I am speaking more directly and using stronger words to describe the situation than many of the mainstream media outlets. CBS, CNN, and NYT are reporting on bits and pieces of Trump’s actions as if they are mere political stories. But those outlets are not addressing the obvious coordinated nature of the unprecedented attacks on the DOJ, FBI, Office of Personnel Management, Treasury Department, and dozens of other agencies.

Taken together, those actions amount to a hostile takeover of the US government by those who are loyal to Trump rather than to the US Constitution. The only word that accurately describes that situation is “coup.” Any other description is a sign of fear, submission, or surrender.

Usually, coups occur between political adversaries competing for control of the government. Here, the coup is an effort by Trump to overthrow the Constitution and establish himself as the unbounded dictator of the United States. The only word that accurately describes that situation is “coup.” Any other description is a sign of fear, submission, or surrender.

Fortunately, many independent political commentators are raising the alarm in ways the legacy media is not. BlueSky has become an indispensable source of resistance and information. Facebook is also emerging as a source of statements and leaks by government insiders. 

To the extent you can, amplify those voices and add your own to the swelling chorus of alarm and indignation that will eventually stop Trump’s unfolding coup. We stopped Trump’s initial attempt to “freeze” grants and loans, and we can do it again.

Here is a partial list of what is happening:

Elon Musk and a team of DOGE infiltrators have taken over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by connecting non-government computer servers to the US personnel mainframe computers. They have reportedly seized private information about millions of federal employees. They have locked the senior managers of the OPM out of their agency’s computers. They have moved “sofa beds” into the OPM offices and put the offices into a “lockdown mode.” See Reuters, Exclusive: Musk aides lock government workers out of computer systems at US agency, sources say.

The hostile takeover of OMP allowed Musk to send an unauthorized memo inviting millions of federal employees to resign in exchange for eight months of “non working paid employment.” [Two unions representing federal workers have filed a lawsuitchallenging Trump’s plan to reclassify and terminate hundreds of thousands of federal workers.]

Elon Musk and a team of DOGE infiltrators have attempted to seize control of the US Treasury payments system—the gateway through which ALL funds from the federal government flow. When a senior manager at the Treasury asked why Musk needed access to the highly sensitive system, the manager was immediately placed on leave. He chose to quit, instead. See The New RepublicTop Official to Quit as Musk Tries to Get Hands on Key Payment System

As of Friday evening, the Acting US Attorney for Washington, D.C., fired about 30 US Attorneys who prosecuted January 6 insurrectionists. See PoliticoDOJ fires dozens of prosecutors who handled Jan. 6 cases. Think about that for a moment: The convicted felons who attacked the Capitol have been pardoned and the loyal servants of the Constitution who prosecuted them have been fired. That fact should outrage every American.

Also on Friday evening, the FBI told eight of its most senior leaders to resign or be fired on Monday. Those senior officials head divisions of the DOJ responsible for cybersecurity, national security, and criminal investigations. Senior FBI leaders ordered to retire, resign or be fired by Monday | CNN Politics

The FBI has fired dozens of agents who worked on investigations of January 6 insurrectionists and has asked for a list of every agent across the US who worked on the largest criminal investigation in the history of the FBI. That list will include hundreds—possibly thousands of FBI agents. The implication of the memo ordering the compilation of the list is that those agents may be fired. See Reuters, Trump’s DOJ launches purge of Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents.

Also on Friday, the FBI told the senior agents in charge of field offices in Miami, Philadelphia, Washington, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles to resign or be fired on Monday. Reuters.

Readers alerted me to postings on Facebook and elsewhere (that I cannot authenticate) claiming to be from current government employees describing an atmosphere of chaos and fear as DOGE infiltrators ominously demand lists of employees who are apparently “next” to be fired.

Dozens of government websites were taken offline on Friday, ostensibly to be scrubbed for references to diversity, gender, or human attributes that are not white, male, and Christian. The effort was brutish, clumsy, and ignorant. The Census Bureau website was offline as DOGE infiltrators attempted to remove references to the fact that America includes people who are not white male Christians. Websites relating to LGBTQ equality, women’s health, transgender issues, and scientific knowledge in general were taken down.

The Pentagon has advised NBC, NYT, NPR, and other mainstream media outlets that they would be “rotated out of the building (i.e., the Pentagon)” to make room for NYPost, Breitbart, and OANN. See @DefenseBaron.bsky.social.

And as all of the above is happening, Republicans in the Senate will vote to confirm a Director of National Intelligence with suspiciously warm views toward Putin and an FBI Director who published an “enemies list” that included dozens of politicians, journalists, military officers, and career government officials.

Oh, and the Republican Party is facilitating the rolling coup. No, that’s not quite right. They are cheering it on.

As with the freeze on grants and loans, it will take a few days for the American public to understand the implications of what is happening. It is up to us to help spread the word.

What can we do? Here’s what we can do: Trump’s rolling coup is (mistakenly) predicated on his belief that the American people are sheep. He believes that we will sit still while he does whatever he wants. 

He is wrong. 

America is based on the consent of the governed, and its economic health requires the cooperation of the participants in the economy. If Americans withhold their political consent and economic cooperation, both the political and financial systems in America will grind to a halt.

What does withholding consent and cooperation look like? That is difficult to predict given the fluid situation, but the citizens of other nations that have grappled with similar challenges have used sustained and massive street protests, national work strikes, work slowdowns, taxpayer strikes, business boycotts, and transportation boycotts. To be clear, I am simply making an observation about how aspiring dictators in other countries have been brought to heel and held to account.

Soon, very soon, Americans will be called upon to leave the comfort of their homes and the anonymity of their computer screens to engage in massive, coordinated action to remind Trump and Musk that they are servants of the people, not vice-versa.

Coda: Trump announced 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada. As one Canadian official noted on Friday, the Canadian auto industry—which is a major parts supplier to the US auto industry—cannot survive for a week with 25% tariffs. The Canadian supply chain will shut down, the American car industry will be severely damaged, and tens of thousands of US autoworkers will be laid off. We aren’t talking about inflation increasing or the cost of eggs. We are talking about tens of thousands of job losses and an economic shock likely to lead to a recession.

The point is that Trump’s anti-democratic blitz is occurring in an environment in which he is making the stupidest economic moves made by any president since Herbert Hoover. That background will provide fertile soil for massive action by Americans who are fed up with Trump and Musk acting like dictators.

I believe in the strength and resiliency of the American people. It may take longer than some of us would like, but they will awaken, like the sleeping giant that German spies warned Hitler about on the eve of WWII. 

I understand those who are frustrated and angry over the seeming flat-footed response of Democratic leadership. But complaining is not a strategy. Issue spotting is not a strategy. Assigning blame is not a strategy. Taking action is a strategy. Spreading the truth is a strategy. Making the daily phone calls recommended by Jessica Craven is a strategy.

So, to the extent you can, direct all your anxious energy and anger toward action. The first time you learn of a protest march near you, show up. And the next time. And the time after that. In many nations, small protest marches gain momentum in a matter of weeks.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump began a trade war with Colombia after that country’s president refused to permit two U.S. military airplanes full of deportees to land in Colombia. As Regina Garcia Cano and Astrid Suárez of the Associated Press pointed out, Colombia and the U.S. had an existing agreement for deportations under former president Joe Biden, and it accepted 475 deportation flights from 2020 to 2024, accepting 124 flights in 2024 alone. But the Biden administration used commercial and charter flights, while as national security analyst Juliette Kayyem noted, Trump used a military plane that arrived unannounced.

As Tim Naftali of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs explained: “If a foreign country tries to land its military planes—except in an emergency—without an existing agreement that is an infringement of sovereignty.” Colombia rejected the military planes without prior authorization and offered the use of its presidential plane instead.

Colombia also asked the U.S. to provide notice and decent treatment for its people, an issue that had been raised and resolved in 2023 after migrants arrived in hand and foot cuffs. Colombian president Gustavo Petro noted that the U.S. had committed that it would guarantee dignified conditions for the repatriation of migrants. The plane of migrants landed in Honduras, where Columbia sent its presidential plane to pick them up.

Trump announced that Colombia’s “denial of these flights has jeopardized the National Security and Public Safety of the United States,” and slapped a 25% tariff on products from Colombia, which include about $6 billion of crude petroleum, $1.8 billion of coffee, and $1.6 billion of cut flowers. In addition, he said, the U.S. would revoke the visas of all Colombian “Government Officials, and all Allies and Supporters.” He promptly deported Colombian staff members of the World Bank who were working for international diplomatic organizations in the U.S., and canceled visa appointments at Colombia’s U.S. Embassy.

Rather than backing down, President Petro threatened to levy a retaliatory tariff on U.S. products. Colombia imports 96.7% of the corn it feeds its livestock from the U.S., putting Colombia in the top five export markets for U.S. corn. According to a letter written by a bipartisan group of lawmakers eager to protect that trade, led by Senator Todd Young (R-IN), in 2003 the U.S. exported more than 4 million metric tons of corn to Colombia, which translated to $1.14 billion in sales. “American farmers cannot afford to lose such a vital export market,” the lawmakers wrote, “especially when access to the top U.S. corn export market, Mexico, is already at risk.”

By this morning the economic crisis appeared to be over, although U.S. visa restrictions apparently remain. With prior authorization and better treatment of migrants, Colombia is willing to accept the migrant flights. The White House declared victory, saying: “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation’s sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States.”

The administration’s handling of the situation with Colombia reveals that their power depends on convincing people to ignore reality and instead to believe in the fantasy world Trump dictates.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced yesterday morning that “[d]eportation flights have begun.” In fact, nothing is “beginning.” In 2024, Colombia accepted on average more than two U.S. flights of migrants a week. And, as immigration scholar Austin Kocher noted, “everyone on this deportation flight was arrested and detained by the Biden administration.”

Over the past four years, Trump and MAGA Republicans repeatedly insisted that Biden had maintained “open borders,” while in fact, what the administration did was to try to address a situation made worse by the coronavirus pandemic.

As Katie Tobin of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, before the coronavirus pandemic, Venezuela, where the economy was particularly bad under rising authoritarian Nicolás Maduro, sent migrants abroad. By June 2022, 6 million Venezuelans had fled their country; by September 2024, that number was 7.7 million. South American governments welcomed the Venezuelan migrants and others, including Haitians fleeing their country’s political chaos.

But as economies collapsed after the coronavirus crisis, Tobin explains, migrant populations that had settled in South American countries were forced out. From 2019 to 2021, Colombia’s per capita gross domestic product fell 4.6%; Peru’s, 5.3%; Ecuador’s, 2.8%; Brazil’s, 11.7%; and Venezuela’s, 20%. As the U.S. economy grew by 8.38%, Canada’s grew by 13.1%, and Mexico’s dropped only by 0.7%, migrants headed north. In September 2021, when 15,000 Haitians who had originally migrated to Brazil arrived at the U.S. border with Mexico, countries throughout the hemisphere realized that they needed a new regional approach to migration.

After nine months of negotiations, 21 countries announced that they had created a new migration pact for the Western Hemisphere. It provided economic support for Latin American countries that were original destinations for migrants, expanded formal pathways for immigration, and increased border security across the region.

Canada and Mexico were the first countries to buy into the new agreement. The U.S. turned next to strong ally Colombia, which agreed in March 2022, after which Vice President Kamala Harris brought on board Caribbean countries. By June 10, when the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection was announced, twenty-one nations had signed on. U.N. observers were present to demonstrate their support.

The Biden administration insisted that countries begin immediate action, and they did. Tobin notes that Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Peru have made sweeping new offers of legal status to hundreds of thousands of migrants already living in their countries, while Colombia has offered legal status to 2 million Venezuelans and Brazil has welcomed more than 500,000. Mexico and Guatemala have offered legal pathways to workers.

Canada, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, and the U.S. launched a virtual platform to enable migrants to apply for admission remotely. When Mexico agreed to accept Venezuelans who had crossed into the U.S. unlawfully and at the same time the U.S. announced a legal pathway for 24,000 Venezuelans, border crossings dropped 90% within a week. Biden and Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador expanded that initiative to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans.

By 2023, border arrests had fallen by about half. Although Congress failed to pass a strong bipartisan measure to increase border security and fund immigration courts, arrests fell by half again after Biden in June 2024 issued a proclamation that barred migrants from being granted asylum when U.S. officials deemed the border was overwhelmed. By the end of Biden’s term, unlawful border crossings had plummeted to lows that hadn’t been seen since June 2020.

There are new challenges to managing migration as wars, climate change, and economic pressures push migrants out of various parts of Africa and out of China. Many of those migrants are finding their way to Latin America and from there to the U.S. The U.N. Refugee Agency estimates that 117 million people were displaced by the end of 2023.

Trump won election in part by vowing to shut down immigration, and as soon as he took office he canceled the CBP One app, the virtual platform that allowed migrants to apply for asylum. During the campaign, he vowed to deport those migrants he claimed were criminals, which many interpreted to mean he would only remove those who had committed violent crimes (which the U.S. has always done). But in his first term, Trump’s people considered anyone who entered the U.S. outside of immigration law to be a criminal, and this appears to be the definition his people are using now.

Daily deportation raids in which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a few hundred people in sweeps began almost as soon as Trump took office. Josh Campbell, Andy Rose, and Nick Valencia of CNN reported that the federal government has flooded the media with video and photos of agents in tactical gear, their vests bearing the words “Police ICE” and “Homeland Security” as they lead individuals in handcuffs. The journalists report that this is not an accident: agents were told to have their agency names clearly displayed for the press.

The presence of television talk show host Dr. Phil (McGraw) with an ICE team in Chicago reinforces the sense that these arrests are designed for the cameras. So does yesterday’s report by Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post that Trump is disappointed with the sweeps so far and has directed officials to ramp up arrests aggressively, providing quotas for ICE field offices. Today, new secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said the department will “shift” to “the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America at the southern border.”

Yesterday’s spat with Colombia’s president enabled Trump to declare victory, but Colombia has been the top U.S. ally in Latin America, a close partner in combating drug trafficking and managing migration. That relationship, which has taken years of careful cultivation, is now threatened.

Will Freeman of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy, posted: “I can’t think of many *worse* strategic blunders for the U.S., as it competes w/ China, than going nuclear against its oldest strategic ally & last big country in S. America where it enjoys a trade advantage…. Trump certainly expects that b[ecause] 1/3 of Colombian exports go to the U.S. Petro will be forced to back down. But Petro seems to welcome the fight & has already signaled wishes to deepen ties w/ China. Colombia will lose partnership on security it badly needs. Only China stands to gain from this.”

Indeed, China’s ambassador to Colombia promptly noted that “we are at the best moment of our diplomatic relations between China and Colombia, which are now 45 years old.”

Meanwhile, according to former ambassador Luis G. Moreno, the Trump administration has shut down 2,100 courses in the premier training facility for State Department foreign service officers, ostensibly because they are too associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreno adds: “Dismantling of a professional diplomatic corps is underway.”

Politico reported that the president of Colombia refused to allow U.S. military aircraft to land; the two airplanes were carrying immigrants who had been detained. Trump immediately slapped a 25% tariff on all goods imported from Colombia to the U.S. He threatened that the tariff might rise to 50%.

More than a quarter of Colombia’s exports are sent to the U.S. The two countries have a free-trade agreement.

I am not an economist but I wonder: If Trump damages the Colombian economy, won’t that encourage more Colombians to enter the U.S. illegally in search of work?

Heather Cox Richardson is wise not to put titles on her posts. They combine several topics. But this day’s posting has a common thread: the next four years will see a changed focus: from the public interest to private greed. Please read it all!

She writes:

Shortly before midnight last night, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its initial findings from a study it undertook last July when it asked eight large companies to turn over information about the data they collect about consumers, product sales, and how the surveillance the companies used affected consumer prices. The FTC focused on the middlemen hired by retailers. Those middlemen use algorithms to tweak and target prices to different markets.

The initial findings of the FTC using data from six of the eight companies show that those prices are not static. Middlemen can target prices to individuals using their location, browsing patterns, shopping history, and even the way they move a mouse over a webpage. They can also use that information to show higher-priced products first in web searches. The FTC found that the intermediaries—the middlemen—worked with at least 250 retailers.

“Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC chair Lina Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.”

The FTC has asked for public comment on consumers’ experience with surveillance pricing.

FTC commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, whom Trump has tapped to chair the commission in his incoming administration, dissented from the report.

Matt Stoller of the nonprofit American Economic Liberties Project, which is working “to address today’s crisis of concentrated economic power,” wrote that “[t]he antitrust enforcers (Lina Khan et al) went full Tony Montana on big business this week before Trump people took over.”

Stoller made a list. The FTC sued John Deere “for generating $6 billion by prohibiting farmers from being able to repair their own equipment,” released a report showing that pharmacy benefit managers had “inflated prices for specialty pharmaceuticals by more than $7 billion,” “sued corporate landlord Greystar, which owns 800,000 apartments, for misleading renters on junk fees,” and “forced health care private equity powerhouse Welsh Carson to stop monopolization of the anesthesia market.”

It sued Pepsi for conspiring to give Walmart exclusive discounts that made prices higher at smaller stores, “​​[l]eft a roadmap for parties who are worried about consolidation in AI by big tech by revealing a host of interlinked relationships among Google, Amazon and Microsoft and Anthropic and OpenAI,” said gig workers can’t be sued for antitrust violations when they try to organize, and forced game developer Cognosphere to pay a $20 million fine for marketing loot boxes to teens under 16 that hid the real costs and misled the teens.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “sued Capital One for cheating consumers out of $2 billion by misleading consumers over savings accounts,” Stoller continued. It “forced Cash App purveyor Block…to give $120 million in refunds for fostering fraud on its platform and then refusing to offer customer support to affected consumers,” “sued Experian for refusing to give consumers a way to correct errors in credit reports,” ordered Equifax to pay $15 million to a victims’ fund for “failing to properly investigate errors on credit reports,” and ordered “Honda Finance to pay $12.8 million for reporting inaccurate information that smeared the credit reports of Honda and Acura drivers.”

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice sued “seven giant corporate landlords for rent-fixing, using the software and consulting firm RealPage,” Stoller went on. It “sued $600 billion private equity titan KKR for systemically misleading the government on more than a dozen acquisitions.”

“Honorary mention goes to [Secretary Pete Buttigieg] at the Department of Transportation for suing Southwest and fining Frontier for ‘chronically delayed flights,’” Stoller concluded. He added more results to the list in his newsletter BIG.

Meanwhile, last night, while the leaders in the cryptocurrency industry were at a ball in honor of President-elect Trump’s inauguration, Trump launched his own cryptocurrency. By morning he appeared to have made more than $25 billion, at least on paper. According to Eric Lipton at the New York Times, “ethics experts assailed [the business] as a blatant effort to cash in on the office he is about to occupy again.”

Adav Noti, executive director of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told Lipton: “It is literally cashing in on the presidency—creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president’s family in connection with his office. It is beyond unprecedented.” Cryptocurrency leaders worried that just as their industry seems on the verge of becoming mainstream, Trump’s obvious cashing-in would hurt its reputation. Venture capitalist Nick Tomaino posted: “Trump owning 80 percent and timing launch hours before inauguration is predatory and many will likely get hurt by it.”

Yesterday the European Commission, which is the executive arm of the European Union, asked X, the social media company owned by Trump-adjacent billionaire Elon Musk, to hand over internal documents about the company’s algorithms that give far-right posts and politicians more visibility than other political groups. The European Union has been investigating X since December 2023 out of concerns about how it deals with the spread of disinformation and illegal content. The European Union’s Digital Services Act regulates online platforms to prevent illegal and harmful activities, as well as the spread of disinformation.

Today in Washington, D.C., the National Mall was filled with thousands of people voicing their opposition to President-elect Trump and his policies. Online speculation has been rampant that Trump moved his inauguration indoors to avoid visual comparisons between today’s protesters and inaugural attendees. Brutally cold weather also descended on President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, but a sea of attendees nonetheless filled the National Mall.

Trump has always understood the importance of visuals and has worked hard to project an image of an invincible leader. Moving the inauguration indoors takes away that image, though, and people who have spent thousands of dollars to travel to the capital to see his inauguration are now unhappy to discover they will be limited to watching his motorcade drive by them. On social media, one user posted: “MAGA doesn’t realize the symbolism of [Trump] moving the inauguration inside: The billionaires, millionaires and oligarchs will be at his side, while his loyal followers are left outside in the cold. Welcome to the next 4+ years.”

Trump is not as good at governing as he is at performance: his approach to crises is to blame Democrats for them. But he is about to take office with majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, putting responsibility for governance firmly into his hands.

Right off the bat, he has at least two major problems at hand.

Last night, Commissioner Tyler Harper of the Georgia Department of Agriculture suspended all “poultry exhibitions, shows, swaps, meets, and sales” until further notice after officials found Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, or bird flu, in a commercial flock. As birds die from the disease or are culled to prevent its spread, the cost of eggs is rising—just as Trump, who vowed to reduce grocery prices, takes office.

There have been 67 confirmed cases of the bird flu in the U.S. among humans who have caught the disease from birds. Most cases in humans are mild, but public health officials are watching the virus with concern because bird flu variants are unpredictable. On Friday, outgoing Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra announced $590 million in funding to Moderna to help speed up production of a vaccine that covers the bird flu. Juliana Kim of NPR explained that this funding comes on top of $176 million that Health and Human Services awarded to Moderna last July.

The second major problem is financial. On Friday, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen wrote to congressional leaders to warn them that the Treasury would hit the debt ceiling on January 21 and be forced to begin using extraordinary measures in order to pay outstanding obligations and prevent defaulting on the national debt. Those measures mean the Treasury will stop paying into certain federal retirement accounts as required by law, expecting to make up that difference later.

Yellen reminded congressional leaders: “The debt limit does not authorize new spending, but it creates a risk that the federal government might not be able to finance its existing legal obligations that Congresses and Presidents of both parties have made in the past.” She added, “I respectfully urge Congress to act promptly to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Both the avian flu and the limits of the debt ceiling must be managed, and managed quickly, and solutions will require expertise and political skill.

Rather than offering their solutions to these problems, the Trump team leaked that it intended to begin mass deportations on Tuesday morning in Chicago, choosing that city because it has large numbers of immigrants and because Trump’s people have been fighting with Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat. Michelle Hackman, Joe Barrett, and Paul Kiernan of the Wall Street Journal, who broke the story, reported that Trump’s people had prepared to amplify their efforts with the help of right-wing media.

But once the news leaked of the plan and undermined the “shock and awe” the administration wanted, Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan said the team was reconsidering it.

This was one of Jennifer Rubin’s last columns for The Washington Post. She resigned on January 13 to start The Contrarian, to be free of the whims of billionaire Jeff Bezos. Bezos wants to be Trump’s ally. Rubin wants to be an independent journalist.

She writes here about the mainstream media’s newfound appreciation for Biden’s economic policies. The latest jobs report showed a healthy increase of 256,000 new jobs, which stunned economists. During the Biden administration, new jobs were created in every quarter for four years. This is an enviable record.

Currently, Trump and Vance are saying on social media that they are inheriting “a dumpster fire.” It won’t take long until they claim credit for the vibrant economy they are inheriting from Joe Biden.

She writes:

The New York Times wrote a few days ago, “President Biden is bequeathing his successor a nation that by many measures is in good shape, even if voters remain unconvinced.” Just how good are things? Here’s how the Times described the state of the economy:

For the first time since that transition 24 years ago, there will be no American troops at war overseas on Inauguration Day. New data reported in the past few days indicate that murders are way down, illegal immigration at the southern border has fallen even below where it was when Mr. Trump left office and roaring stock markets finished their best two years in a quarter-century.

The Financial Times reported last week on “why America’s economy is soaring ahead of its rivals.” Time published an essay in November that said, “President-elect [Donald] Trump is receiving the strongest economy in modern history which is the envy of the world.”

Gosh, you are not alone if you are wondering where such upbeat reporting has been for the past few years. After all, “The economy had a strong 2024: robust growth, low unemployment and inflation descending to 3%,” former car czar Steve Rattner told us. Moreover, he has said, “All told, Biden has added 693,000 factory jobs while Trump added just 425,000 before Covid hit.7 … The rate of grocery inflation — particularly troubling for everyday Americans ­— has subsided to less than 1.6%.” Real median incomes are higher than when Trump left office, border crossings are lower.

Overall, the Biden record is impressive, especially in light of the recession and pandemic he inherited. Researchers at the University of Chicago told us: “Under the Biden administration, real GDP rose 12.6 percent, rightly cheered … as ‘a historically robust expansion’ that repeatedly defied forecasts. Since the pandemic, economic growth in the US has far outpaced that of our peer nations. Business investment is up; unemployment is low.”

There are several explanations for why we did not have coverage commensurate with the success President Joe Biden enjoyed. The news media’s fixation on polls showing what voters thought about the state of the economy and its negative news bias (which I have written about) that refused to give proper weight to Biden’s successes failed to give voters an accurate picture of Biden’s achievements. And yet now, somehow, with the election over, the media widely acknowledges that Biden’s record is strong, something they downplayed during the election.

We should not discount the disproportionate impact of rising costs (again, echoed without sufficient context in political coverage) on the public perception of the economy (which in turn got amplified to the exclusion of “good news” by the media). “Inflation in the United States reached 9% in 2022, meaning that the average cost of goods and services went up by that amount,” Johns Hopkins University’s David Steinberg explained. “That is the highest rate of inflation that this country has experienced in over 40 years.” While inflation has now dropped close to the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent benchmark, “the price level today is more than 20% higher than it was four years ago. As a result, many Americans cannot afford to buy as many things as they otherwise would.”

There is something else at work as well. Utilizing 89 years’ worth of data, University of Chicago researchers found, very simply, “It is not enough to say that a strong economy favors the incumbent. … A strong economy favors Republicans, and a weak economy favors Democrats, regardless of the incumbent.” They postulate that “when the economy is weak, Americans become more risk averse, and that’s why they favor the party that promises redistribution and social insurance — Democrats. During booms, by contrast, voters are more willing to take risks and therefore more likely to elect Republicans, who favor lower taxes.”

Democrats, including Biden and former president Barack Obama, like to point out that Democrats routinely inherit recessions from Republicans, clean up the mess and yet get no credit for it. (“In finance, there’s a phenomenon known as the ‘presidential puzzle’ — stock returns have been higher under Democratic administrations than Republican ones,” the research showed. “Between 1927 and 2015, the period analyzed in our study, the average excess market return was nearly 11 percent per year higher under Democrats than Republicans.”)

And yet this does not explain why, after inheriting great economies, Republicans manage to mess things up, ushering in the conditions for Democrats to return. Let me suggest the most simple explanation: The sugar-high from the only consistent economic policy Republicans favor (supply-side economics) quickly wears off, leaving the country with higher debt, more economic inequality and underinvestment in critical areas (e.g., education, infrastructure). Coupled with reckless deregulation that often results in financial crisis (as in 2008), Republicans’ policies leave Americans reeling, ready to bring back the only party of responsible governance: the Democratic Party.

Democrats should extract several lessons from this pattern. First, the media cannot be relied on to tell the success story. Republicans have a reliable propaganda machine in right-wing media; Democrats enjoy no such luxury. (One need only look at the economic coverage during Biden’s term to see this is true.) Second, it follows that Democrats must do a much better job touting their own successes and communicating with low- and no-information voters. Biden joked he should have put his name on the stimulus checks; he was right.

And finally, before Democrats change their philosophy or dump capable leaders, they might simply run a 24/7 hard-hitting critique of the Trump economic agenda. That will set the stage for the midterms.

We already have hints what Trump will do: run up big deficits, cut taxes for the super rich, slash entitlements, enact inflationary tariffs that provoke trade wars, undertake mass deportations that prove economically disastrous and do corporation’s bidding in enacting reckless deregulation.

Voters may not have long memories (amnesia about Trump’s first term pervaded the campaign) but, fortunately for Democrats, Trump’s failures and scandals will be fresh in the minds of voters when they go to the polls in 2026

The editorial boards of the Miami Herald and the Orlando Sentinel warned about the economic consequences of Trump’s plan to deport immigrants with Temporary Protected Status. They are “our neighbors, our friends, and our relatives.” Why didn’t Floridians think of that before they voted?

The editorial says:

It’s like 2017 all over again when it comes to Donald Trump and his threats about ending Temporary Protected Status.

TPS, a federal program familiar to  Floridians, protects some immigrants from deportation for a limited time because of emergency conditions in their home countries, such as Venezuela and Haiti. To qualify, they must be living in the U.S. when their country is designated for TPS and must meet a certain cutoff date. It allows them to live and work legally in the U.S. but does not offer a pathway to permanent legalization.

In his previous term, Trump tried and failed to end TPS for immigrants from Haiti and Nicaragua. This time, the president-elect should think twice. His home state of Florida would be affected more than any other. Almost a third of about 863,880 TPS recipients now live in this state, many from Venezuela and Haiti, places with well-documented turmoil and failures.

TPS recipients have legal status in the country, even if they initially came without documents. And TPS recipients pay into the system, through taxes. An estimate from 2019 put the number at $4.6 billion in federal, state and local taxes each year.

Their ranks are growing

As the Miami Herald has reported, the number of TPS recipients in Florida has more than quadrupled in the past three years, up from about 65,000 in April 2021 to about 295,720 now.

The Biden administration expanded TPS, including for about 472,000 Venezuelans, a move that translates into many more who could potentially be affected if Trump targets TPS — a program created in 1990 under President George H. W. Bush.

TPS emerged as an issue in the 2024 Trump campaign during that shameful episode in September, when Trump’s running mate, Vice President-elect JD Vance, spread debunked conspiracy theories about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and Trump continued to spread that misinformation at a presidential debate.

“They are eating the dogs … they are eating the cats,” Trump said repeatedly.

Ominous threats in Ohio

In early October, when Trump was asked whether, if reelected, he would revoke TPS for Haitians — at least those in Springfield — and deport them, he responded: “Absolutely. I’d revoke it, and I’d bring them back to their country.”

Vance also mentioned TPS at an Arizona campaign event in October: “What Donald Trump has proposed doing is we’re going to stop doing mass parole. We’re going to stop doing mass grants of Temporary Protected Status.”

All of that was well before the election.

Now, with a second Trump administration in the offing, theory could become reality. Look at his appointments: immigration hardliner Stephen Miller as deputy chief of staff for policy — he has criticized the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program aimed at slowing the number of migrants at the southern border — and Tom Homan as the “border czar.” Homan led Immigration and Customs Enforcement when families were separated during Trump’s first term.

Immigration was one of the main drivers of Trump’s 2024 campaign. Much attention was focused on his vows to conduct mass deportations, especially of undocumented people. About 11 million immigrants without legal status were in the U.S. in 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Trump has also talked about a host of other immigration actions, including ending birthright citizenship and restarting construction of the border wall. After the fearmongering in Ohio, TPS is on the table, too. Lawsuits derailed Trump’s efforts the last time. Will it happen again?

We understand that TPS is, by definition, supposed to be temporary. That’s fair. But in many of these countries — Haiti, certainly, and Venezuela — conditions are just as bad as they were or worse. Returning TPS recipients to their countries could put them in danger. In Florida, where TPS recipients are our neighbors and friends and relatives, we should already know that.

This editorial was originally published in the Miami Herald. The Sentinel sometimes republishes editorials that reflect our point of view. Send letters to insight@orlandosentinel.com.

Bloomberg.com reported that the 500 richest people in the world have $10 trillion in wealth.

The biggest winners were leaders of the tech industry. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, with a fortune exceeding $400 billion.

The world’s 500 richest people got vastly richer in 2024, with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang leading the group of billionaires to a new milestone: A combined $10 trillion net worth.

An indomitable rally in US technology stocks played a key role in turbocharging the trio’s wealth, as well as the fortunes of Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The eight tech titans alone gained more than $600 billion this year, 43% of the $1.5 trillion increase among the 500 richest people tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

But consider this: The United States is considered the richest country in the world, and yet 37.9 million (11.5%) of its residents live in poverty.

The tech bros could pool their excess billions and end poverty in America. Imagine if each of the top 500 contributed $1 billion to a fund to end poverty. What’s $1 billion to someone with $10 billion or $50 billion or $400 billion. Pocket change.

Another thought: as the richest grew richer, homelessness soared. The Boston Globe reported on the homelessness statistics for every state.

Homelessness is on the rise across the country, including in Massachusetts, which had the third largest increase among all states in 2024.

The number of people experiencing homelessness across the nation rose 18.1 percent between 2023 and 2024, according to new data from the federal housing agency’s annual report to Congress. In New England, the data showed diverging trends, with two states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, reporting steep increases, while two others, Maine and New Hampshire, had smaller homeless populations.

In Massachusetts, the homeless population increased by 53 percent, to about 29,300 in 2024, from just over 19,100 the year before. That’s nearly three times the national rate, and behind only Illinois and Hawaii. Massachusetts is unusual among states in that it has a right-to-shelter law, so the majority of homeless families had a place to sleep indoors in a state-sponsored facility.

In New York State, where I live, 158,000 people are homeless, a 53% increase from 2023 to 2024.

In California, 187,000 are homeless, an increase of 3%.

During the pandemic, the Biden administration expanded the child tax credit, and child poverty plummeted. But Republicans refused to renew the higher payments proposed by Biden, and child poverty rate more than doubled from 5.2% in 2021 to 12.4% in 2022, according to the US Census Bureau.

I recommend to you a book called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. It was written by British sociologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The more equality, the happier people are. Extreme inequality contributes to envy, rage, and despair.

Again, the fabulously wealthy tech bros could end poverty in America. But I’m not holding my breath. They are too engaged in competing to see who can amass the biggest fortune.

Scott Tomlinson, opinion writer for The Houston Chronicle, predicts that MAGA voters, especially in Texas, are soon to have an unwelcome surprise, thanks to the DOGE commission of Elon and Vivek. They voted for deep budget cuts. They voted to downsize the federal government, aka the “Deep State.”

He writes:

President-elect Donald Trump’s coalition splintered over visas for specially skilled workers in recent weeks, which turned especially ugly on Twitter, now known as X.

Elon Musk told critics of the program, including Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, to “Take a big step back and FUCK YOURSELF in the face. I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend.”

Solving the immigration crisis is relatively easy compared to balancing the budget, which Musk is supposed to be focusing on. When Trump voters find out what must be cut or whose taxes must rise to stop deficit spending, they’ll start grabbing pitchforks.

U.S. politicians from both parties have unintentionally experimented with the global economy. By running up huge deficits, they tested Modern Monetary Theory, an idea put forward by the left.

MMT was a hot topic during the Obama administration, with proponents arguing that economic powerhouses like the United States don’t have to worry about deficits. Governments can print as much money as they want through borrowing as long as inflation doesn’t rise.

Oops.

Conventional macroeconomic theory recommends governments spend money, cut taxes and raise deficits during recessions. When the economy grows, governments should spend less, raise taxes and build surpluses. Governments should act as economic shock absorbers. We’re good at spending but not taxing.

Musk promises to cut federal spending by a third, or $2 trillion. The Texas Legislature ranks 10th in the nation for dependency on the federal government to pay for state spending, according to economists at Wallet Hub. 

Federal funds pay for a third of the state budget, the Legislative Budget Board reports.

Imagine what would happen to Texas if the Legislature had to come up with $30 billion to make up for federal spending cuts?

Every dollar the federal government spends has a champion somewhere. If Musk tries to cut popular programs, the backlash over H1-B visas will seem like a walk in the park.

.

Blogger “That’s Another Fine Mess” predicts trouble ahead for Team Trump. They are already squabbling because Trump insisted he would stop immigration but quickly backed down when Musk and Vivek said they needed highly skilled foreigners because no American was qualified. This is an excerpt. Open the link to read it all.

He writes:

The first year of Felon34 2.0 will be more shambolic than the first year of Felon 1.0, regardless of how many of the Felon’s idiots claim the benefit of four years of experience. Felon34 and his loyalists will take power better prepared to implement a number of malicious ideas, but will make less progress and create more chaos than they did in 2017 for two simple reasons:

First, because their added experience of preparedness will be swamped by their much greater arrogance, leading them to shed guardrails, fall into obvious traps, and overreach. We’ve seen it already on every major issue that has come up over this past month.

Second, because they’ll be inheriting the country at a somewhat less-stable equilibrium than they did last time: highly prosperous, but with less room to maneuver without generating inflation or triggering a recession. The market went through its longest period of decline since 1978 two weeks ago. With the uncertainty about whether Felon34 will be able to mount his mass deportation – and the effect that will have on the economy if he pulls off even a portion of it – added to his insane threats against Panama, Canada and Greenland; his plan to slap tariffs on the rest of the world; and his general insanity – the market will respond. The market does not like uncertainty. Felon34 sees his main job as keeping the market up – to support his billionaire owners and to flim-flam the flimflammables – and he is going to quickly run into the problem that he cannot please the droolers and the market simultaneously. He knows if he fucks the market he’s screwed, and if he doesn’t deliver the promises he made at his hatealongs he’s also screwed.

My prediction: Fire and fury. By this time next year it will be “a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.” Felon34 is the most determined moron in US political history. And then in January 2026, the mid-term campaign begins.

The MAGA Civil War will continue in 2025. Former George W. Bush Campaign Manager Stuart Stevens, who is now a Democrat, says that people should not ignore the fact Steve Bannon turned on Elmo: “Bannon is a guy who has defined himself as a thug, and thugs must do thuggish things. I think Musk has no idea what he’s getting into when he gets in a fight with Bannon over this.” Stevens then explained that if Bannon is ever able to turn Trump against Musk as he’s trying to do, that could be a big problem for Elmo: “There’s been reporting that Musk was not a student when he got a visa, and when he made his application for naturalization he put false information on that document. That is grounds for revoking citizenship. It happens all the time. One reason why Musk is so obsessed with immigration is because he knows this. I wouldn’t bet against Steve Bannon.”

Former Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer posted a poll on X which asked if Republicans agreed with Musk on the H-1B visas or if they agreed with Steve Bannon on it. He got over 92,000 votes, with 67% siding with Bannon over Musk.

Elmo continued his purge and punishments of right-wing accounts who disagreed with him on this. White nationalist talk show host Stew Peters (758,000 followers): “Elon Musk is STEALING money from my subscribers and LYING to them. This morning I woke up to find that he removed my blue check mark and canceled my ability to have subscribers. My subscribers were told that I canceled my subscription service and they would not be refunded for the next two weeks in which they’ve already paid X for, but which won’t allow me to provide them content. This is intentional deceit and theft.”

White nationalist Nick Fuentes: “Today X appears to have un-verified 5 more prominent critics of the H-1B program. Their checkmarks were taken, subs were refunded, and character limit reduced. This is now overt political censorship. This comes after the Project Groyper brand account and all of its affiliates were suspended last week.” 

My prediction: I agree with Stuart Stevens that one should not bet against Bannon. He knows how to fight like this and Elmo doesn’t. If Bannon’s side ever gets the goods on Elmo’s immigration and naturalization, expect Elmo to be in deep shit and Felon34 will abandon him.

In closing, this is the gang – as Jeff Tiedrich described them – who could screw up a fuck in a brothel. As I like to say, they’re the people who flunked the IQ test low enough to qualify for membership in MAGA. They’re the Broken Toys who never learned to work and play well with others. Over the past three weeks – before they’re even in office – they have screwed the pooch and munched the lunch. They couldn’t pass the bill they had to pass without Democrats, and Democrats aren’t going to pull their chestnuts out of the fire next time. They have till the middle of the month to fix the debt ceiling and they can’t elect a speaker. There’s going to be nobody there next Monday to accept the vote count of the electoral college. The odds are good the stupid sonofabitch can’t get sworn into office, in which case, the position goes to the Speaker – of which there is none. Assuming they find a way through this mess, they have twelve months to do all the things they have to put through Congress – with a one-vote margin. Their leader is Donald Trump – who bankrupted a casino!

They’re going to be throwing their best friend through a window, and they’ll be tripping when they try to pull their pants on and falling against the dresser and knocking themselves out.

We’re the side who won the Civil War and beat the Nazis and smashed the Japanese.

Act. Like. It.

Paul Cobaugh retired from the military after a 19-year career. He served in Special Operations and received multiple awards for his service. He focused on mitigating adversarial influence and advancing US objectives by way of influence. Throughout his career he has focused on the centrality of influence in modern conflict whether it be from extremist organisations or state actors employing influence against the US and our Allies. He writes at “Truth About Threats,” where this post appeared. He writes here about the dangers of ignoring history. To read the complete post, open the link.

Cobaugh writes:

As we get ready to transition into 2025 and a new Trump administration, let’s take a good look at the sheer, staggering idiocy of his campaign pledge to start a global tariff war. We’ve been here before and it was called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It was a primary factor that led us into a Great Depression, a World War and the most disruptive period in modern US and world history. 

For those that pay attention, history is often painfully instructive if left unheeded. It wasn’t just Tariffs in the US of the 1930s that laid devastating economic pain onto the backs of America’s working classes. Unregulated and poorly regulated greed contributed their fair share as well. The 1930s all together have some pronounced parallels to the America we now live in. Tariff wars are but one of those parallels. All combined, those same parallels represent acute threats to not only working-class Americans but to our republic itself. 

Syndicated cartoon gallery: China tariff trade war

During the Roaring Twenties, post WW I, America was prosperous, hopeful and on the rise. The Stock Market crash of 1929 and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act brought all of this to an end, not only for the US but the globe. The Great Depression ushered in the 1940s , which saw the globe fully immersed in WW II and the beginning of the Cold War. Twenty years of intense global upheaval literally shook the world. Nothing would ever be the same again. If you consider the Great Depression as a precursor to WW II, then Smoot-Hawley was a primary cause of the Great Depression. Let that sink in. 

The political landscape of the 1930s, was as diverse and active as at any time in our history. The Great Depression spawned a very large number of progressive movements and even a fairly strong socialist movement, both in pursuit of protecting the workers who had suffered badly from a lack of employment. 

Political cartoon U.S. Trump MAGA steel tariffs trade war recession

Today, diverse and contrary political movements include many as fascist as those of Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan, or as forward-leaning in support of American workers as today’s progressives. Unlike the 1930s, today’s political landscape does not include the record high 900,000 enrolled in Socialist movements that we saw up until 1932. By the late 1930s, the socialists were mostly gone but the American far-right movements lasted up until the day that America declared war on Germany, post Pearl Harbor. Today, the fascists still exist in the form of MAGA and related movements, while that socialism is still mostly absent from any significance on the American political landscape. Those on today’s political spectrum that work to protect workers almost always come from the political left, progressive or otherwise.

Today though, is about tariffs and how they are always mentioned as one of those most prominent causes of the Great Depression


Xi Jinping – Page 3 – mackaycartoons

Smoot-Hawley was a bill designed in theory to protect American agriculture from foreign competitors. In the end, it hurt both deeply. This protectionist measure also played out against a backdrop of a deep American commitment to isolationism, as the rest of the world slowly but unstoppably marched towards a world war. 

The Hawley- Smoot Tariff and 
the Great Depression, 1928– 1932

In the 1920s, the focus of trade policy shifted from protecting manufacturing to protecting agriculture. Congress struggled to fi nd the right 
way to assist farmers and relieve farm distress, turning to a tariff revision 
after President Coolidge vetoed price- support legislation. The resulting 
Hawley- Smoot tariff of 1930 proved to be the most controversial piece of 
trade legislation since the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. The subject of 
heated debate during its difficult passage through Congress, the legislation 
helped push the average tariff on dutiable imports to near- record levels just 
as the economy was sliding into the Great Depression. The early 1930s 
saw an unprecedented contraction of world trade, during which time many 
other countries retaliated against the United States and significantly increased their own trade barriers. The Hawley- Smoot tariff had far- reaching 
consequences and it marked the last time that Congress ever set duties in 
the entire tariff schedule.

- Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy
- This PDF is a selection from a published volume from the National Bureau
of Economic Research
- Volume Author/Editor: Douglas A. Irwin
- November 2017
Bruce Plante cartoon: Trump's trade war

The bottom line to Smoot-Hawley and presumably President-elect Trump’s threats against our neighbors and most other nations, is that tariffs start tariff wars, in which there are no winners. Also, it is working Americans that do the overwhelming majority of the suffering. At the moment, toxic oligarchy is keeping the prices of goods and services artificially inflated. No, not inflation, but just plain and simple, old-fashioned price-gouging

There is legitimate fear of Trump’s approach to the economy. First of all, he’s inheriting President Biden’s hot, well-grounded economy, just like he did in 2016 from the Obama administration. He has already told us that he doesn’t think it will be easy to lower consumer prices and as we all have learned during his 2018 losing trade war with China, it is the American people who pay the cost of tariffs

Trump Promises Lower Food Prices But Cant Deliver by Monte Wolverton
Introduction to the research from the National Bureau of Economic Research

“The ghost of Smoot-Hawley seems to haunt President Trump.”1 As fears of a trade war between the U.S. and China grew after the U.S. presidential election of 2016, many commentators drew precisely this link between the events of 1930 and today. And the consensus was that the trade wars of the 1930s were an ominous portent of what might await the world if Donald Trump’s protectionist impulses were not checked

The conclusion of the research from the National Bureau of Economic Research

President Trump’s recent use of tariffs as a “weapon” to cudgel other nations into changing their trade policies has renewed interest in understanding what trade wars are and how they affect flows of goods and services across borders. As our research indicates, the current trade war was by no means the first one initiated by the U.S. The passage of Smoot-Hawley led to direct retaliation by important U.S. trade partners. Countries responded to its passage by imposing tariffs 24 targeting U.S. exports. Although protectionism was on the rise in the 1930s, we collect novel data and design empirical tests which show that retaliation against Smoot-Hawley was distinctive: it involved policies specifically directed at the U.S., the initial provocateur. 

Using a new data set on quarterly bilateral trade flows as well as detailed information on who filed official protests during the legislative debate over the Tariff Act of 1930 and who (later) retaliated, gravity model estimates demonstrate that U.S. exports were severely affected by the Smoot-Hawley trade war. Even after controlling for financial crises, the effects of the global decline in aggregate demand, and the overall decline in partner countries’ imports from all sources, U.S. exports fell substantially. If they had just fallen in line with the overall reduction in imports in each country, we would have found no effect: instead, they fell disproportionately, by between 15 and 33 percent, depending on the specification and the countries involved. By examining the effects for protestors as well as retaliators, we are able to more extensively assess the retaliation against Smoot-Hawley: this was not limited to those countries traditionally regarded as “retaliators”. 

Product-level regression estimates confirm that retaliators were strategic in their response to Smoot-Hawley (as they have been in more recent trade wars), choosing to bludgeon key U.S. exports differentially. Fast-growing U.S. exports of automobiles appear to have been particularly targeted by U.S. trade partners. Our results suggest that MFN constraints did not prevent countries from effectively retaliating. In addition to strategically targeted tariffs, retaliation involved such non-tariff measures as quotas, boycotts and increased sales resistance to American goods. Our results show that this retaliation was extremely effective in reducing U.S. exports. In March 2018, Peter Navarro famously predicted that no country would retaliate against U.S. tariffs. 29 The evidence from the 1930s suggests it is a mistake, even for a country as wealthy and powerful as the United States, to assume that it can engage in a trade war with impunity.

- THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TRADE WAR- NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
- Kris James Mitchener
- Kirsten Wandschneider
- Kevin Hjortshøj O'Rourke
- March 2021
Donald Trump Plans to Use “Socialism” to Ameliorate Effects of Tariffs on  Farmers — The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

To wrap up this short history lesson, I wish to remind readers that trade wars rarely achieve their desired effect and more often than not… backfire. Tariffs are always paid by the consumer, not the companies involved in the import/ export of products. Projections for Trump’s intended tariffs suggest an increase of at least $1,900 a year for the average family although depending on the products and services used, it could easily be five times that. In an economy where consumers are already being abused at the cash register, such additions to family budgets are not only unwelcome, but could negatively impact other important budget items. 

Most families do not have room in their budgets to fight trade wars that make the oligarchical elite, wealthier, while their budget becomes overburdened because of tariffs. This is why tariffs are often described as a “tax” on consumers.

Trump Tariffs Cartoons