The rise in tax rates is why I decided to roll over my 401k to a Roth IRA. I don’t want to be 59 and paying taxes on withdrawals from my retirement account.
Pre-tax contributions can help lower income taxes during your working years, while after-tax contributions can reduce your tax burden in retirement. Both have their advantages, but it’s also smart to save outside traditional retirement plans, such as individual investment accounts or with guidance from a financial advisor
I completely agree. I'm in my mid-40s, getting closer to retirement, with over $2 million in non-retirement funds. I'm debt-free and hold relatively little in my retirement accounts compared to my total portfolio over the last three years. Honestly, you can't ignore the value of a good financial advisor-just make sure to do your homework and find a trustworthy fiduciary.
@@Aarrenrhonda3 This is the direction I want to take with my finances as I prepare for retirement. Can you recommend the advisor who helped you get ahead?
Annette Christine Conte has consistently been my top recommendation. She’s widely recognized for her expertise in financial markets and has a strong track record. I highly recommend her.
@@PULLYOURPANTSUPBOY I just watched a clip of a young man who’d left the US and doesn’t plan to return. His last job in the US gave him 1 week annual leave per year and no sick leave. That meant that he used his annual leave for when he got sick. How is that even possible? Workers in China probably have more freedom than that. Astonishing.
you're omitting to point out that american companies that have chosen to manufacture off to cut costs, to INCREASE THEIR PROFITS. Its going to take a big adjustment for american companies to reduce their profits because they can't import cheap goods from overseas and force them to manufacture on shore. They will either have to reduce their profits considerably or significantly raise the prices of their goods, or pay american workers the same rate as someone in China, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Mexico. HOW IS THE US GOVERNMENT GOING TO FORCE AMERICAN COMPANIES TO MANUFACTURE ON SHORE and pay american workers a fair wage?
It won't work because it's impossible to put US workers in a race to the bottom with those in the developing world who make far less and have lower expectations. That is not even hitting the areas of lower business and environmental regulations, worker rights, and taxes. Corporation will not lower their profit because that is what they exist to do.
There’s not a chance in hell. We would see an insane market crash if the market responded in the way this guy is hypothesizing. But I don’t think he’s that stupid. He’s a liar.
i don't know if it was on purpose, but enriched his wealthy friends by crippling unions. starting with Patco. Which kinda makes him a POS for working americans.
Reagan's mistake was thinking that free market reforms would work without removing the counter free market regulations in the govt. And in that sense, Reagan had alot of help, both with Republicans and especially democrats.
@@bernardzsikla5640 Regardless of government regulations, "trickle down economics" was a scam from the start. The notion that the rich would create more jobs if we given more money is laughable. Common sense should tell people that when there is a need to hire more workers, then companies hire more workers, because they are in the business of making money. But, when you give big tax breaks to the rich, then they'll gladly horde it.
Reagan started the on-going trend of squeezing income and wealth out of the middle and lower classes to enrich the top 1%; it also hollowed out America when nearly 20% of Americans struggle for food and shelter; the country‘s economic engine is running with a dead cylinder.
The thing is, they'll find a way to blame it on other people, in the USA, or overseas, or both. It'll turn out not to be Trump's fault. It will all be the fault of George Soros or something.
The purpose of a tariff is to protect domestic industry. The problem is, we no longer have much domestic industry to protect. US companies are not at all eager to re-shore manufacturing plants here, because Americans will not work for the $2 per hour they're willing to pay in order to maintain their enormous profit margins. Basically, these tariffs will be offsets for the massive tax cuts Trump has promised to his oligarch cronies.
us companies can go out of business. they’re not really us companies if the produce in mexico or china? new domestic companies will arise to fill demand.
People generally don’t care who makes their stuff, they care much more about how much their stuff costs. Most of those red baseball caps and flags were made in China, and I didn’t hear too much complaining about that.
"People" DO care about who makes the stuff. They care when "the making" becomes loss of their former jobs with no commensurate availability of other jobs. Tariffs, if imposed and as the guest emphasized, must be focused on sound principles such as leveling the playing field for foreign vs domestic production. And not much focused on trying to pick winner and loser industries. And, yes, tariffs will not be entirely a win for all. Whether Mr Trump, his administration, and our legislators have the knowledge/wisdom to act prudently and effectively in this area of tariffs remains to be seen.
@@knolltop314you and the guest 0:01 are just wrong..they just don’t work.. here’s an example; 2017 trump put 20% tariffs on steel. Steel prices went up 30%, however, US steel manufacturing has not increased.. remember when trump bragged about foxcom agreeing to build factory in US.. well, they never came.. manufacturing is not coming back.. the required capital to build factories is too high and there’s no certainty that the next administration won’t eliminate tariffs..
Very frustrated that a follow up question was not asked on tariffs. The guest seems to believe that we can unilaterally tariff imports and thus equalize US trade. As soon as we implement tariffs on imports, other countries will implement tariffs on our products driving demand for our exports down and increasing the cost of everything, foreign and domestic. There is no unilateral tariff option. Critical missed question by the host.
That’s exactly what happened in tRumps trade war with China in his first term. China retaliated by not importing US soybeans resulting in tRump sending taxpayer money to farmers to cover the resulting low prices of soybeans.
No. The math doesn’t add up. If you run a trade deficit, you have more ammunition than your trade surplus counterparts when it comes to tariff and trade retaliation. In strategic terms, the deficit country can win from a trade war dynamic.
You're 100% right. Imposing tariffs very quickly escalates into a trade war with no winners, only losers. That's why economists across the political spectrum warn against starting down this road.
Yess these ppl think these things happen in a vacuum, no there will be retaliatory tariffs, jus like his last term when we had to pay farmers to let crops rot cas China said naw we don't need soy beans
One reason manufacturing left the US is because environmental standards in other countries are lower, labor costs are lower, no child labor laws in many places. Is that what people want to have here again? If manufacturing comes back and practices good environmental and labor policy, costs will be higher here. If there were also many many more good jobs with benefits, maybe it could work. I am skeptical it can happen given corporate greed.
This guy is a complete liar; NAFTA was passed to destroy labor unions in America and make high profits for corporations by using slave labor overseas. Corporations still don't want to pay union wages, or they would have done it already! The USA does not have the infrastructure to manufacture products. So, tariffs will raise prices and cause inflation. Deporting immigrants would increase the cost of food; 90% of America's food comes from California. So, I suppose individuals who want to deport people want to pick vegetables? China doesn't need the USA; we comprise 4% of the global population. The USA needs China. People need to get a library card and crack a book.
SOS, to highlight your excellent point, trumps first term tariffs on China resulted in China reducing their buying of our soybeans, which required giving massive government subsidies to farmers to the tune of $25b.. of course tax payers footed the bill..
He’s a fool to think average Americans don’t want cheapest products. Americans live for SALES! There is room for targeted tariffs but not an overall 10-20% or 60% on Chinese products. Of course what Trump says vs what he does are two completely different things. Trump mobilized the a$$holes of America with his vitriol and it worked. First and foremost America needs a living wage, indexed for location. Then everyone can make more money, pay their fair share of taxes, and need less help from the government.
The model where we buy low price/low quality items at Walmart that fail in a year (going into the landfill) and then need to be replaced is a bad one. That is largely the product of this free trade system with China. Something needs to be done about this problem. A model where people pay more for a higher quality item that is worth paying to fix is the behavior the government should be incentivizing. Tariffs certainly don’t bring manufacturing to the US or improve the quality of products but they can help eliminate the disincentives to doing so (manufacturing being so much cheaper and easier overseas being a major disincentive) Personally, I’m not optimistic that Trump is capable of achieving any results worth having but he is right that the role of the government should include setting rules on trade that lead to the best possible results for this country (time to admit the free trade regime isn’t leading to the best results possible)
@ couple things, people won’t reduce volume of stuff for quality of stuff. Just isn’t going to happen. The mindset of Americans is he who dies with the most stuff wins. I disagree somewhat with your evaluation that Walmart stuff only lasts a year. I do think you can tell the difference in stuff cheaply made. China today is much like Japan of 60’s. They made cheaper stuff after WWII but shifted over time, improving quality.
@I guess I didn’t really address your initial point exactly. The problem with wages for low skilled work is that the quality of jobs available is worse than in had been before manufacturing moved out of the United States. The tariffs seem like a reasonable first step if you want to reduce the motivation of companies that sell product in the US to have their manufacturing done overseas. The consumer may very well not be happy about the result but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
I thought he brought up some very good points to consider. I'm a progressive Dem and I think it's important for us to be open to all thought and compromise to get things done. Country before politics. Thank you PBS for showing different opinions. You don't get enough credit.
It depends what they are on. Tariffs on Chinese clothing may just move production to Guatemala and not necessarily raise costs. Guatemala is a pro-US country with Democratic values and goals. best to support allies that are democracies although imperfect rather than authoritarian states like China
@@websitemartianthat’s a good argument for using the threat of tariffs to make things more equal between economies. And if other economies don’t respond, you can fulfill on the threat.
Where do you live, my friend? Free trade is not so free in this country anymore. When 4-5 huge corporations operate the entire market, that's not free trade, sorry. And it's valid for more industries than ever. We have anti-monopoly laws, but they are basically not enforced enough. The highest standard of living...? Seriously? Go to China (what a paradox!) and look how they live there. Half of this country technologically lives in the 19th century and to be clear, I am not talking Amish people. Go to Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., and check their healthcare, SS systems, childcare, and education. Then you will see what are the highest standards of living, indeed! An abundance of goods doesn't automatically mean an option for good choices. You can go to the grocery supermarket and choose cereals of almost any taste from 20 producers perhaps. Is it an abundance and good choice...? Barely. Processed, oversweetened cereals full of artificial chemicals are things we shouldn't eat at all! And that is only one example. The highest living standard and the abundance of goods are the two biggest fallacies people think about this country. Reality is far from it!
I dislike taxes for one main reason: the government requires individuals to calculate their own taxes and imposes heavy penalties for mistakes. While I have no problem paying taxes as a US citizen, it seems strange to me that I have to do the paperwork when the government already has all the necessary information.
I don't regret the financial mistakes I've made in the past, as they've all taught me valuable lessons. However, my biggest misstep was planning my finances without consulting a licensed financial advisor.
I sought the guidance of a financial counselor, and as I near retirement, their advice has proven invaluable. I was initially concerned that compound interest on index funds wouldn’t suffice since I started investing later. It's quite amusing to realize that I’ve outperformed colleagues with more investment experience, having gained over $386k tax-free.
@@williamDonaldson432 This is definitely significant! Do you have any recommendations for professionals or advisors I could contact? I really need guidance on proper portfolio allocation.
Rebecca Lynne Buie is the coach who guides me. With years of experience in the financial markets, her strategies have worked well for me and contributed to my success. She offers clear entry and exit points for the securities I focus on
Thank you for the tip. I found your coach online and conducted my due diligence before scheduling a call. Based on her resume, she appears to be highly proficient.
Companies are in business to make money. They don't give an ef about anything else. Many US companies do not care about what is best for the country or for the working class. This guy is out of touch with reality.
To varying degree many are agreed. And the guest correctly (imo) points to the importance of labor negotiation to assist in reaching a balance in management/worker power. Reagan's success in stifling unions and this trend continuing to recent times has definitely contributed to imbalance in corporate power visavis their workers. I was heartened to hear the guest agree.
Sorry. I simply just don't think this is correct. I've seen business running in the red while trying to avoid laying people off. I came from a family business that workers were paid first, even if hardly anything was left. It's not that simple. And when you look at products on the market and prices you must surely realize companies aren't making money on some of those products. They may actually be losing money on some. Yet they make them anyway, knowing someone needs that item at that price point. And they hope to make money on other items. Or look at the automobile industry. People now upset because some of the lower entry level cars were done away with. The manufacturers made those cars for years, not really making money on them. Often losing money. There are still many 25k cars on the market. Accounting for inflation they aren't more expensive than 20 years ago. The manufacturers don't make money on them, if any. Just retooling to manufacture a car is millions of dollars invested. I was shopping for a wash machine (lots of choices) but actually found a decent priced heavy duty basic model. Basically, rugged and cheap. I doubt the manufacturer makes much money on it. I think it probably makes more on the fancy models to make up for that? But either way they made a sturdy basic model lower priced for a consumer like myself. Even though I doubt they had much of a profit. Pay better attention to the products on the market. How things operate. Yes, it's profit. But.. it's not all about JUST profit. Many things are made, operate at a potential loss or break even to keep people employed or someone getting a product they need. You'll notice if you look at any product line you'll usually find a model in there the company really isn't making money on or might lose money on. They still generally think of ALL consumers.
And why should they? I mean the very basis of free enterprise is to allow businesses to make as much money as they can. They would have destroyed the environment if they Hippies in the 60s had not started to warn us of the damage that corporate America was doing to the environment, and the goverment had to step in an create a lot of rules and regulations to protect the air we breath and the water we drink. The GOP would like us to end those protections, and protections for workers. A lot of GOP voters think that goverment has too many rules for businesses, but as a hippie from the 60s, who remembers Love Canal (and if you don't know about Love Canal, try googling it), and in my opinion, free enterprise, left unchecked, would destry our ecology.
@ Yes, if it promotes social stability, general happiness, and greater prosperity for the country. That was the prevailing corporate philosophy before Friedman and it was working.
Why would you blame him for simply stating this fact. Back in the 1950s, the chairman of IBM, which was one of the fastest growing companies in the world said "IBM Existist to return a dividend to the shareholder." This is in fact the foundation of the free enterprise system. Friedman was simply stating a reality.
@@vha111that is not true, America exists because people have their freedom and independence. If this government want to force people on how to to use their money, people will revolt. Shareholders are people, and they have the freedom on how to use their wealth and it is natural to use the wealth for their own good. The shareholders own the corporate America and the corporate first priority is to be responsible for shareholders, and abide by the law.
Oren Cass blatantly lies directly to everybody's face . He did not talk about higher wage , lack of industrial clusters , With the illusion that Tariff would solve everything . Why he did not talk about hoover 's Tariff before 1929 .
Because he’s not an illiterate simpleton maybe. I think you are missing what smoot hawley actually tells us about interventionism. Any time anyone references 1929 as proof how bad tariffs are clearly doesn’t know much about American or global economic history. Here’s how. The U.S., since 1896, ran large and growing trade surpluses-it was the most dependent large country on foreign demand to maintain employment. Since 1830, the U.S. had the highest tariffs in the world. The U.S. grew faster than any country on earth, with the most protectionist and interventionist government. It’s insane to blame tariffs for the Great Depression but not notice how the U.S. got wealthy in the first place! Smoot hawley in 1929, 100 years after implementing tariffs on foreign goods, American policymakers got cocky and figured they could take even more from the world by doubling down on protectionism. They overplayed their hand. A better analogy would be if China (large country most dependent on its trade surplus) initiated a trade war that generates trade retaliation (Trump). The surplus country is the first mover here and is in a much weaker position. 1929 actually demonstrates that a trade surplus country should move towards free trade. It says nothing about deficit countries. But the British did the opposite and grew faster than both the U.S. and Germany (the largest trade surplus countries of the time). The U.S. now is the 1929 UK, and China is 1929 USA.
He makes a modest case for tariffs, still very weak. Our manufacturing and trade for the last 50 years has been directed by Republicans policies , yes with a boost by Clinton also. Obama did try to get manufacturing back , but hit a roadblock after 2 years when the Republicans took the house and would not bipartisan anything
@@MarkV007 Reagan led to huge manufacturing jobs cut in only 2 years ..185 k auto and 200k manufacturing jobs lost in his forst two yrs ...mergers were a huge part of that as well. Carter had a 80billion dollar deficit....Reagan, in his final year, had a 140.billion dollar deficit. Reagan has ro eaise tax rate up because it was tanking the economy and making the govt poor.
It is ludicrist to think tariffs will improve things in the US. It is double tax on the consumer. The corporations will pass on the tariff to the consumers, and the states and cities will tax the cost the tariff adds to the purchased good. Also, even illegal immagrints won't work for $1 an hour, which is what workers in foreigh textile and shoe factories make. For what you would pay workers in the US, you could buy the good overseas and fill a bunch of containers on ships, and still make more money. Now if you are slective with your tariffs, such as tafiffs on Chinese EVs or pickup trucks, you can get some production to move to the US. This was what happenend with the US put tariffs on imported pickup trucks. Toyota built a giant plant in San Antonio. I am not saying tariffs are bad, but I am saying that tariffs should be selective. Harely Davidson had to start builing motorcycles overseas because many contries put tariffs on HD products. So it can work against you too. If countries retalieate, US businesses that do international trade may see their products faced with tariffs, decreasing demand.
This policy will result in Americans having to consume less (actually good), pay more for everything, higher taxes and less services from the government, and risk the world moving on from the dollar. Without the world using the dollar to trade the US will have to balance it’s budget or risk a massive economic pain.
Hardly. You can track the reduction of tariffs following WWII with the increase in wealth in the U.S. Reagan did impose a 75% tariff on Japanese automobile imports, which, one, reduced the number of Japanese vehicles imported into the U.S., and it also made Japanese vehicles more expensive. The tariffs also made domestic vehicles more expensive because domestic auto makers had less competition, and with the increased cost of Japanese vehicles, domestic automobile manufacturers were free to increase their prices, completely independent of their manufacturing costs.
I get your point but correct me if I'm wrong didn't it also play a role in getting foreign auto companies to build manufacturing plants here ? Thereby providing good American employment and the ripple effect of boosting US business that services the auto business.
@@dsdwtn5911 I don't think there is a question that the tariffs were good for the autoworkers. Detroit began charging more for cars, and while the foreign auto companies now manufacture more cars than the domestic auto manufacturers, the parts for those vehicles are generally manufactured outside the U.S., and the assembly takes place here. The foreign car companies decided that assembling cars here was cheaper than assembling them overseas, and then shipping them here. My guess is that they can assemble more here than they can assemble there, and ship here. Closer to market, as it were. Japanese electronics were also subject to tariffs. But Japanese companies did not relocate assembly to the U.S., which could be assembled and still shipped in mass quantity. I'd argue that the tariffs did not cause Japanese auto manufacturers to assemble cars in the U.S., but rather they could sell more cars assembling in the U.S. rather than assembling in Japan, and then shipping to the U.S. But that was not the point of Reagan's tariffs, which was to deter the purchase of Japanese vehicles and encourage the purchase of domestically made vehicles. But the point here is that tariffs are inflationary. Car prices went up. Auto workers benefitted. The consumer lost. What happens to the farmer if China decides to stop importing American produce?
@@CarlGerhardt1 Not really. Tariffs were also applied to Japanese electronics. Japanese companies did not relocate manufacturing of electronics to the U.S. because they can still ship massive amounts of electronics rather efficiently. Motor Vehicles take more space. Harder to ship efficiently in quantity. Japanese auto manufacturers began assembling in the U.S. because they could satisfy the demand easier by assembling here than assembling in Japan, and then shipping to the U.S. Volkswagen was the first foreign auto manufacturer to assemble cars in the U.S., and they weren't subject to huge tariffs. They assembled in the U.S. because it was easier to get a higher quantity of cars into dealers hands by driving them over a highway from the plant than hauling them on a large ship across the ocean, and then hauling a smaller quantity over a highway.
@@redrustler1 Thanks for your thoughts. On your question, I'd say find and develop new markets. I'm no expert in this arena but I do think we need to stop so much dependance with China and focus on working with countries that are allies. Mexico has been getting a lot of good business press lately. I think the expert in the PBS clip made a good point that we really haven't had free trade for a long time given all the subsidies etc that China implements. I enjoyed our chat.
Given the title of this video... My expectation was that this guy was going to make argument and defensive of tariffs from the standpoint of economics. It didn't take very long to recognize that the impetus of his argument revolves around politics... To Wit: nationalism. He made no single salient point couched in quantitative engendered context.
@@alanfarrance8639This campaign with the objective of dumbing down the U.S... one can only hope that it is at least not a domestically spawned initiative.
I don't think we are talking about a recession, I think we are talking about annther great depression. All of the ingredients are in place. Florida alone will see one of the greatesed destrucctions of wealth in modern times. Insurance costs in Florida will skyrocket, and homes will sometime become un-sellable, and when that happens, that is a decrease in the money supply. It is as if that money was simply burned. Some will walk away from their flood damaged homes because they can't afford to fix them and the Socialist Citizen insurance company created by the state, is only paying out about half the claims. Condo owners are seeing massive assesements due to new laws that require that buildings be inspected and serioud problems be corrected, causing some associants to levy new assocation set asides of up to $150,000, which many of the owners can't afford. Once again, some of them will be forced to sell their condos at cheap prices, and more value will be lost. I believe that we are looking at a massive transfer of wealth form the poor to the wealth, and if Trump does everything he said he would do, we will be in recession by the end of 2025, and a great depression by the end of 2026.
In my lifetime (64 years old) all the major catastrophic economic events happened under republican administrations. Although you cannot place the blame on a lot of what happened on them, somehow people always think that what republicans can do will help the economy.
@@stananderson4524 In the last 50 years, the biggest market increases have been under Democrats, and the federal debt usually does better under Democrats, and when they are in power, the GOP cuts taxes, but then complains about the national debt. I give Trump some slack though, becaues Covid was a difficult situation.
Across the board tariffs don’t make more sense and aren’t more free market because there are many industries that don’t even exist in the US and those tariffs hurt the consumer unnecessarily. They are pointless when not used with a particular strategy or industrial policy behind them.
Tariffs would level the supply side of the game, however it will disproportionately place the burden on the lower and middle class. The US needs to level our income inequity. Claiming that foreign corporations are greedy and need to be held in check while US corporations are fair and altruistic is ridiculous. Taxes (tariffs) and regulations for everyone except the large corporations and the wealthiest is imbalanced, dangerous and downright foolish.
I wish the interviewer had asked Mr. Cass what happens when the countries that have tariffs put on them respond with tariffs of their own. I can see tariffs being used on a case by case basis with countries that are already engaged in some form of protectionism against us. Tariffs could also help us protect certain industries vital to our national security but I'm unconvinced that blanket tariffs, as Mr. Cass suggests, with all our trading partners worldwide are a magical solution to all our economic troubles.
That's what happened with Trump and his trade war with China. Trump had to bail out US farmers who couldn't sell their soybeans to China. The bailout cost US taxpayers $38 billion.
Your answer can be found in Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. The U.S. slapped broad based tariffs on goods. 25 countries replied in kind. The result was, shall we say, depressing! And that brings up a point not mentioned: broad tariffs will result in not only higher prices for incoming goods but a reduction in goods being exported. Nike can’t open up shoe factories in the U.S. tomorrow. Apple isn’t capable of making phones here at the drop of a hat.
It is possible that some countires will do so, such as was the case with Harley Davidson. Of course HD's response was to start building some motorcycles outside of the United States. HD fan boys and girls beat up HD for the decision, but the root cause was the cost of labor and tariffs.
Because he’s not an illiterate simpleton maybe. I think you are missing what smoot hawley actually tells us about interventionism. Any time anyone references 1929 as proof how bad tariffs are; they prove they clearly don’t know much about American economic history. Here’s how. The U.S., since 1896, ran large and growing trade surpluses-it was the most dependent large country on foreign demand to maintain employment. Since 1830, the U.S. had the highest tariffs in the world. The U.S. grew faster than any country on earth, with the most protectionist and interventionist government. It’s insane to blame tariffs for the Great Depression but not notice how the U.S. got wealthy in the first place! Smoot hawley in 1929, 100 years after implementing tariffs on foreign goods, American policymakers got cocky and figured they could take even more from the world by doubling down on protectionism. They overplayed their hand. A better analogy would be if China (large country most dependent on its trade surplus) initiated a trade war that generates trade retaliation (Trump). The surplus country is the first mover here and is in a much weaker position. 1929 actually demonstrates that a trade surplus country should move towards free trade. It says nothing about deficit countries. But the British did the opposite and grew faster than both the U.S. and Germany throughout the Depression (the largest trade surplus countries of the time). The U.S. now is the 1929 UK, and China is 1929 USA.
Plenty of people thought about the long term impact of globalization (e.g. 90% of advanced semiconductors manufactured in Taiwan), but nobody listened to them because "the system" was focused on driving down costs and totally ignored risk and long term. And now that the impact is becoming obvious, of course they'll pay attention. Our government, and a huge number of people have zero risk management skills.
Increasing manufacturing is not the solution as we are no longer living in the industrial age. We now live in the information age and having the world's greatest inventors, innovators, and creators is more important now. The emphasis should be on affordable higher education and funding for research and development.
The idea that this an either/or decision between jobs that require high education and those that don’t has created the current situation because not everyone is capable of working those high skill jobs (and there aren’t enough of these jobs to be had). That we encourage everyone to get college degrees and are now finding that people got degrees that don’t provide opportunities that pay sufficiently to pay off the loans is evidence of the problem we have. These folks weren’t capable of getting the marketable engineering degree and thought that any degree was better than none which, ultimately, is not correct. So, we have traded a manufacturing economy for a service economy and this has decreased the quality of the jobs for low skill workers. This is a problem that needs to be addressed if you accept there will always be low skill workers. We’re in a pickle where the people who benefit the most from the cheap/low quality product at Walmart are the people most hurt by the shortage of well paying/low skill jobs. Right now, when a cheap/low quality product breaks or is damaged you throw it away. Getting to a place where you pay more for the product would encourage fixing it and when you buy something new you’ll think more about quality than you do now (and consider paying more for better quality). US manufacturing has a chance to compete if quality is a bigger factor in buying decisions.
I wish he'd explain how he thinks tariffs will fix the problems of financialization described in his (excellent, highly recommended) essay "The Rise of Wall Street and the Fall of American Investment." Tilting the tables in favor of American companies isn't going to help much when shareholders use their expanded profits on stock buybacks and other speculative forms of savings rather than investment. He gestures at boosting worker power but I doubt anyone believes the Republican donor base of bosses is going to allow that to happen in any meaningful way beyond the superficial culture war stuff
I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but I do think a simple, consistent tariff, as the guest supports could be worthwhile. By being broad, covering everything from Albania to Zambia, it could be lower. By being across the board, it makes sure countries don't feel like they were being unfairly targeted. It would also avoid having the government pick winner and losers. On the down side, it will increase prices; that's what a tariff (better name would be 'import tax') is designed to do. If it doesn't raise prices it's not doing its job. And it would take some time for domestic manufacturing to be re-established. For textiles, maybe a few months to year. For more complex manufacturing, it could be years. And of course, other nations can and will reciprocate, so we shouldn't expect to be able to export much. Finally, many in the administration would prefer to have import tax revenue to reduce income tax revenue. This obviously benefits those with higher incomes (i.e. the Trump mob). ps. Several of the Presidents he identified as supporting tariffs were in office when that was the main source of federal tax revenue. The Federal income tax was not instituted until 1913, well after most of them presided.
This is a sensible discussion of the benefits of tariffs, encouraging US made manufacturing... but Trump's purpose seems purley puntative, extortionary and thuggish.
There are many well written comments. Many seem to have some level of experience or education in this area of discussion. In my mind, there or those who believe on- shoring/returning manufacturing to the US will happen almost overnight. It won't. If it does occur, it will take years. Lots of years. Putting up a building is the easy part. Supply chain, raw materials, labor, and so on are the hard parts. So, how many Americans would be willing to sit behind a sewing machine for 6 - 8 hours with minimal health care coverage?
lots of good points on the benefits of tariffs. Louisiana shrimp fishers benefited from the tariffs Trump put in place during his last administration where their product was cheaper than Chinese imports; these are now gone and the fishers are back in poverty. Some quibbles however - WHO will pick the vegetables and fruits? I have read books where white American workers decided to write on the experiences of the illegal workers in the fields, and they found the work unbelievably hard. In the UK since Brexit and the shortage of foreign workers, farmers are leaving crops in the fields because they cannot get them harvested. They have tried hiring local workers, who last on average a couple of days. Historically workers would come into the US during harvest season and then go back again; it was easy. Now, with the difficulties of getting work visas and the terrible conditions obtaining in many South American countries (often due to the War on Drugs and gangs imported from the US) people get here and stay if they can. All of this needs to be readdressed, but I doubt if it will be - build a few camps, get the max publicity out of it, then forget about a rational response to the problem.
Sorry, Mr Isaacson, I greatly respect you as a researcher, historian, and even interviewer in most cases, but you just don't have the chops for this interview. His central argument that tariffs are good for the balance of trade is fine. BUT, the major reason Trump was voted into office was because people are NOT receiving the economic benefits of a roaring economy under Biden. How is the average American, who is not a business owner, and will have weaker labor protections as he points out, going to be any better off with tariffs across the board? That should have been your main question along with more probing questions on why he views the same remedies around be used when am economy is doing well and we all are benefiting from cheap Chinese goods for all sectors. Jeffrey Sachs could wipe the floor with this guy.
If you actually listen to the unspoken part, you'd hear that poor people should not expect to be able to buy whatever they want. Millionaires and billionaires are telling working-class people that maybe they don't need so many choices in goods. At the same time they are doing this, they are planning to cut government spending. Which is a euphemism for cutting entitlement programs and social safety nets. So at a time poor folks will be able to afford less; they are going to get less help. Well, America, you gave them a mandate. People get the government they deserve.
He suggests converting a marketplace of lowest cost products made overseas to a marketplace of higher cost products made here. Do we have a manufacturing infrastructure ready to produce quickly, and a labor force willing to work for lower wages? The cost of domestic products will also rise to just below the tariff premium, so there will be inflation for both foreign made and competing domestic products. And it is unlikely that domestic producers will pay premium wages.
Hard to take seriously apparently wealthy people saying "Sure there will be some problems now, but the future would be better" when everything costs too much for many people now.
Yes, if people thought inflation was bad before, wait to see what happens now. In fact, tariffs are a double tax. The first tax is when the company passed the cost of the tariff to the consumer. The second is when the cites, counties, and states add sales tax to the increased purchase price of the goods. For a party that is anti-tax, the GOP seems to have just decided that a tax on poor people is not a big deal.
We can't make everything here and our labor costs are much higher then Mexico, India, Cambodia, Vietnam, China etc. Look around your house from clothes to what is in your kitchen and see where it came from. American companies will have to take less of a profit (which they won't do) or increase the cost of that product and pass that onto us the consumer. And tax cuts only help the wealthy and corporations and increases our national debt. Taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations needs to go up to pay down our national debt. Nobody wants to talk about how much debt we have. Tax cuts have never lowered the debt. Great interview and PBS you do great work!
Holy cow! Industry doesn't want it, so it must be BAD! Yeah, that's it, they'll just keep raising their prices til riots break out over the 3 raisins in the store! Yeah! That'll happen.
I mean if people didn't want tariffs and price hikes on practically everything why did they vote for Trump? Pretty straightforward either had more inflation or less inflation. People said they wanted more inflation and higher prices
Who says everything will cost more? Where's the idea come from that max profit has to be maintained? Where's the idea come from that jacking up prices, rather than reduce profits is inevitable? That people will keep buying at jacked up prices? Because Max Profit says so?
@buzoff4642 if you add x% tariff onto the price of any item. What do you think happens? The company is out of the goodness of their heart just decide to eat it on the margin? They're going to pass it all on to us. We pay for the tariffs. It's what people voted for, it's what they want. Higher prices. This is first year college stuff. If you have a $1 item made elsewhere and it normally retails for $2, when you place a 25% tariff on it it becomes $1.25 and retail becomes 2.50. this is common knowledge. If a company is worried about losing business they may eat some of that but that just compresses their earnings. This is part of how the tax cuts for the wealthy are being funded
@@gen-X-trader If a company is losing business they will eat some of that and it compresses their earnings. And if tariffs are high enough, either they onshore the work, or some other company does. The presumption that people will pay anything for [x] is built on market monopoly, and market monopoly is sole source built from offshoring to cheapest least regulated on the planet. Which serves solely excessively greedy shareholders.
Yeah, I love how he is complaining about how the other countries didn’t play by the rules?!? No, there government realized that they were going to suffer and decided to help industry out…we should have done the same thing. But that would be anti capitalist…
It was not only cheaper labor, but that is major part of it. A big component though was for many manufacturing processes, such as tanning leather for shoes, a lot of really nasty chemcial are used, and in the US, many of these chemcials were finding their way into the drinking water. If you are not famaliar with Love Canal, google it. Paper companies are massive polluters, as was the steel industry. If you don't remember Acid Rain, google it. I am old enough to remember how severe the environmental impact of manufactureing was. Of course the Federal Goverment put in those pesky regulations to keep companies from killing us, and this made many factories incapable of being updated in a finanaically profitable way, and with unions pushing for ever more pay and benefits, many companies looked at all of these factors and said they would just produce in places like China, which is now facing the same enormous consequences of big businessies being unchecked and destryoing the environment. China is poisinning it watar, ground, and air the way we did. On a business trip to BeiJing in 2004, I almost could not breath because the air was so rancid. Anway, it was not JUST lanbor costs that drove a lot of manufacturing out of the US, but the steel industry was probably the most affected, but at the same time, they were probably the biggest polluter.
Here is a great map that shows what I am talking about in the changes to air quality that the EPA made. If you don't know what acid rain was, it was exactly what the name implies. When it would rain, the rain would carry particales of chemcial on to the surface, and it would create an acid so powerful, it would eat the paint off of cars. The third map, the annual wet sulphate, is acid rain, and the steel industry was responsible for most of it. www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program-results Now the steel companies could have updated the plants (a few were updated) but the cost of the updates and the pounding of Union drums for higher wages meant that it suddenly became cheaper to import steel.
The old idea that people only by imports because they are cheaper doesn't really apply anymore. Many times those imports are not only cheaper, but the quality is better. He also isn't taking under considerarion the state of society in America. Education is damn near frowned on. It will take decades to bring manufacturing back to the US and that is very questionable.
Minute 14 this guest states the basic starting point is basic respect for the law. Oops he just disqualified the stain an adjudged rapist and lifetime financial fraudster.
@@alviverdeusSome pairs of Levi’s already cost that much in Canada. I buy a lot of Apple products, the components of which often come from Taiwan, China, South Korea, and more recently India, so this is going to hurt. As the value of the Canadian dollar goes down, the price of almost everything we import is going to go up because so much is priced in U.S. dollars. I’m going to have to pay more for subscriptions, including the one that lets me watch TH-cam ad-free. At least we grow our own food here and are energy self-sufficient. I’m going to sit out the next few years not buying much stuff. I wish we’d get out of NAFTA and NORAD (NATO is OK) and join the EU, but that’s wishful thinking.
I missed the part where he said corporations were happy to take advantage of free trade to get cheaper goods that they could sell to Americans for a little cheaper cost to consumer AND (still) larger proffit to themselves. Those cheaper goods were not directly available to the consumer ... there was no Temu in the 1980's.
This is likely going to change. There is new Biden tariff being considered that will require that people using TEMU and other companies register with the goverment, and pay tariffs on the goods they buy, or the company will have to collect the tariffs at the time of sale and send the money to the US goverment. Either way, if this tariff is put into place, it will be difficult for these companies to sell directly. The good news is that in this case, it is possible that some of them will open distrubtion warehouses in the US, but the big benefit of shipping from China was that due to the way the postal agreements work, they could mail you a package for a couple of bucks and have the US Postal Service deliever it to your door for less than it costs us to send a package down the street.
Canard - no one likes playing taxes. I do. It’s worth it to live here. The value is amazing for everything from safety, health, culture, people, everything.
Without domestic manufacturing infrastructure we're in for a world of hurt with tariffs and the inflation they will necessarily cause. In a couple/few years, after we invest billions of dollars in domestic manufacturing infrastructure, inflation will then come back down. Not sure we have the intellect or will to make that investment.
The current political argument for tariffs with " yes it will do damage but we will benefit in the long term". This guy ignores the economic realities of tariffs along with retaliation by other guy and deals in wishful thinking. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but when they ae presented as possible facts - well that belongs on FOX not on PBS.
Love the whining when an iota of attention is given to the general welfare but the Libertarian bow to billions in silence going to bailouts and general gifting to wall st.
Getting all the infrastructure in place for making chips, and taking into consideration that loads of parts we need to produce the chips come from other countries, it's gonna take a long, long time to get them online. Do they have a plan for what we'll do during a long process of our industries catching up?
The question is how long will it take to reestablish American manufacturing? If the companies were here but factories are underutilized it would work. But when we don’t have the infrastructure we will be dealing with inflation for a very very long time. You can’t only do tariffs without an industrial plan.
Never thought i would see it. NPR is bending the knee. Other countries did not follow the rules last time, so we are going to change the rukes, and now they will miraculously follow them.
so by extension he just claims that Chinese EVs are built by slave workers, maybe DJI drones are as well... does that mean slaves can produce more advanced products than free men? 😮 isn't freedom supposed to bring out creativity?
I wonder where we’re hiding all that slave labour in Canada. Oh yes, we probably have hundreds of thousands working in those clandestine fentanyl labs.
If tariffs cause people to buy American-made goods, they will be buying them at higher prices than pre-tariff. We will be abandoning the benefits of comparative advantage as explained by David Ricardo.
Please look up economist Alan Blinder on Wikipedia and the section, “Criticism of consumption-focused economics.” Alan says people care more about their jobs than about buying a bunch of cheap stuff, in the form of a rhetorical question. Then he says, *_“That would mean economists have been barking up the wrong tree for more than two centuries.”_* Now, Alan Blinder was in the Clinton administration. So, we have centrists from both left and right saying a lot of the same thing. Similar to Oren Cass here saying it’s not just the size of the economic pie but also the workers baking it. 😜
I was interested in the guest's views. Am pleased Amanapour & Co chose to give the man an opportunity to share his views. The last 10 years or so has been, imo, too much debate withing our own silos. The self-reflective echo was becoming horrible.
@@knolltop314 fair enough, perhaps my comment was somewhat heavy handed. I’m just disappointed that there wasn’t a more robust challenge to this guest’s main taking points, many of which are deliberate obfuscations of facts , historical , economic realities etc…some are outright falsehoods . This is an endemic, widespread problem with mainstream media. I expect a little more from PBS. His tariff talking points are false..and why recent history, economic reality assures us that they will fail..why? -a tariff is a tax on consumers, with a disproportionate negative affect on lower income Americans. -many American manufacturers rely on a global supply chain to successfully produce their products, especially rare earth metals which China recently announced they reduce in response to Trump’s tariff plans - it will be impossible despite our best efforts to re-shore business in a time line that would offset the negative affects of tariff war -The US consumes far more than it produces, China produces far more than it consumes. See US current account deficits on FRED website -US manufacturers often raise prices to match imports creating upward inflationary pressures across the US economy -Trump’s 2017 Tariff, scheduled to expire next month failed…completely failed…see Current Account deficits timeline 2017-2020..FRED -the US dollar is the default currency in nearly all global trade transactions There you have just one aspect among others that conspire to run the US economy into the ground…good luck
@@knolltop314I agree. I’ve been reading some writings by right-wing academics and even watching interviews with Peter Thiel to get a better grasp on where these ideas come from. They picked the wrong person to interview for this episode. There’s little depth to what he’s saying. Fortunately, PBS is still publicly funded. You can expect more bias in the future. Comcast is spinning off MSNBC (biased as well, even if I tend to agree with them most of the time)and CNN because they’re becoming unprofitable while Fox News is getting an increasing share of viewership. The quality of programming is likely to deteriorate further.
We sent manufacturing abroad to strengthen imperial dominance. We wanted dollars embedded into all countries economies world wide. We needed to export USD. We did that with trade deficits. Now everyone wants to "dedollarize" but those countries owe debts in USD. They need dollars! You can't quit the USD very easily.
@tradeprosper5002 alternative ways to trade using alternate currency is a yes. Alternative financing is not really there yet. The USD is still King financing unit globally. One thing that I personally distrust, but they are way ahead on is CBDC.
They’ll make the workforce “more productive” by not allowing overtime pay, by making people work 16 hours a day. This is going to suck for the elderly, infirm, single parents and the average American. No guarantees the companies will bring back factories and jobs here regardless of tariffs. Historically speaking the costs will be passed onto the consumers.
10% higher price is too much. People want it cheapest. And you want corporate owners to invest in productivity to pay more when they can just get cheap workers? Sorry.
American companies will NEVER give up their profits. They will leave America before they give up their profits. Nothing is less loyal than a corporation.
tariffs are just a way of closing the us economy to imports, with the intent of keeping capital in the country. it’s economic protectionism , which did us just fine for the vast majority of our history.
Apple is an easily understood illustration of how sick the US enterprise model has been. Apple's top market cap came from paying Foxconne a low price for an iPhone, packaging it in a pretty box, and charging the highest price for a phone. It had to come to an end.
I have to shake head when I see advertisements that say "made in America". What goes into the goods produced in America is more compilcated that just buying something with a flag on it, thinking the whole thing was made in a factory in the United States.
I don't know what kind of ivory tower Owen lives in but given the choice, an employer will always pay shit wages. And while I agree we should be enforcing the law on immigration, I'll give you three guesses as to who has impeded immigration reform at every turn since Reagan (hint: it's the GOP).
The rise in tax rates is why I decided to roll over my 401k to a Roth IRA. I don’t want to be 59 and paying taxes on withdrawals from my retirement account.
Pre-tax contributions can help lower income taxes during your working years, while after-tax contributions can reduce your tax burden in retirement. Both have their advantages, but it’s also smart to save outside traditional retirement plans, such as individual investment accounts or with guidance from a financial advisor
I completely agree. I'm in my mid-40s, getting closer to retirement, with over $2 million in non-retirement funds. I'm debt-free and hold relatively little in my retirement accounts compared to my total portfolio over the last three years. Honestly, you can't ignore the value of a good financial advisor-just make sure to do your homework and find a trustworthy fiduciary.
@@Aarrenrhonda3 This is the direction I want to take with my finances as I prepare for retirement. Can you recommend the advisor who helped you get ahead?
Annette Christine Conte has consistently been my top recommendation. She’s widely recognized for her expertise in financial markets and has a strong track record. I highly recommend her.
Thank you for the lead. I searched her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
Yeah, it’s never America’s fault. It has nothing to do with greed.
Yeah American rich capitalists didn’t offshore work to China. lol
It Israel 's tho
Yeah - the new, desperate factory workers in the US will never make the same level of income as workers of the past. Totally greed.
They spin around in circles to not simply say …. US owned companies moved 80% of American jobs to China 1950-2024 😂
Tax cuts for the rich
Paid for by tariffs for the working class
Wealth inequality will get even worse (if that's even possible).
Totally agree. The size of the pie matters, but if the topping is all on one side, it's failure and won't sell.👍
So, tariffs are really taxpayers paying for US manufacturing jobs. Kind of socialism of employment.
You guys show that you understand how to play Checkers when the game being played is closer to Chess
The working class? So people who aren't on welfare. Sounds like we should get rid if welfare.
@@PULLYOURPANTSUPBOY I just watched a clip of a young man who’d left the US and doesn’t plan to return. His last job in the US gave him 1 week annual leave per year and no sick leave. That meant that he used his annual leave for when he got sick. How is that even possible? Workers in China probably have more freedom than that. Astonishing.
you're omitting to point out that american companies that have chosen to manufacture off to cut costs, to INCREASE THEIR PROFITS. Its going to take a big adjustment for american companies to reduce their profits because they can't import cheap goods from overseas and force them to manufacture on shore. They will either have to reduce their profits considerably or significantly raise the prices of their goods, or pay american workers the same rate as someone in China, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Mexico. HOW IS THE US GOVERNMENT GOING TO FORCE AMERICAN COMPANIES TO MANUFACTURE ON SHORE and pay american workers a fair wage?
It won't work because it's impossible to put US workers in a race to the bottom with those in the developing world who make far less and have lower expectations. That is not even hitting the areas of lower business and environmental regulations, worker rights, and taxes. Corporation will not lower their profit because that is what they exist to do.
Exactly! This guy is living in an idealistic fantasy world...
There’s not a chance in hell. We would see an insane market crash if the market responded in the way this guy is hypothesizing. But I don’t think he’s that stupid. He’s a liar.
Why do you think literally every good would be tariffed? 🤭🫵🏻⛔️🧠
Trump will lease out detained peoples from his concentration camps at even lower wages. Prison labor, that sort of thing. Probably.
Reagan ruined the middle class, on purpose.
i don't know if it was on purpose, but enriched his wealthy friends by crippling unions. starting with Patco. Which kinda makes him a POS for working americans.
Reagan's mistake was thinking that free market reforms would work without removing the counter free market regulations in the govt.
And in that sense, Reagan had alot of help, both with Republicans and especially democrats.
@@bernardzsikla5640 Regardless of government regulations, "trickle down economics" was a scam from the start. The notion that the rich would create more jobs if we given more money is laughable. Common sense should tell people that when there is a need to hire more workers, then companies hire more workers, because they are in the business of making money. But, when you give big tax breaks to the rich, then they'll gladly horde it.
Reagan started the on-going trend of squeezing income and wealth out of the middle and lower classes to enrich the top 1%; it also hollowed out America when nearly 20% of Americans struggle for food and shelter; the country‘s economic engine is running with a dead cylinder.
The voters chose Trump. Now they can choke on their decision
The thing is, they'll find a way to blame it on other people, in the USA, or overseas, or both. It'll turn out not to be Trump's fault. It will all be the fault of George Soros or something.
Agreed.
You put the most fragile US economy in the hands of a guy who could not even run a casino. This will end in tears.
Lol
The purpose of a tariff is to protect domestic industry.
The problem is, we no longer have much domestic industry to protect.
US companies are not at all eager to re-shore manufacturing plants here, because Americans will not work for the $2 per hour they're willing to pay in order to maintain their enormous profit margins.
Basically, these tariffs will be offsets for the massive tax cuts Trump has promised to his oligarch cronies.
us companies can go out of business. they’re not really us companies if the produce in mexico or china? new domestic companies will arise to fill demand.
People generally don’t care who makes their stuff, they care much more about how much their stuff costs. Most of those red baseball caps and flags were made in China, and I didn’t hear too much complaining about that.
Trump bibles also.
@@cestwhat1317and the watches, and trump cards
"People" DO care about who makes the stuff. They care when "the making" becomes loss of their former jobs with no commensurate availability of other jobs. Tariffs, if imposed and as the guest emphasized, must be focused on sound principles such as leveling the playing field for foreign vs domestic production. And not much focused on trying to pick winner and loser industries. And, yes, tariffs will not be entirely a win for all. Whether Mr Trump, his administration, and our legislators have the knowledge/wisdom to act prudently and effectively in this area of tariffs remains to be seen.
@@cestwhat1317 Biden should have tariffed all Trump's Chinese imports. Worth it for the laughs alone.
@@knolltop314you and the guest 0:01 are just wrong..they just don’t work.. here’s an example; 2017 trump put 20% tariffs on steel. Steel prices went up 30%, however, US steel manufacturing has not increased.. remember when trump bragged about foxcom agreeing to build factory in US.. well, they never came.. manufacturing is not coming back.. the required capital to build factories is too high and there’s no certainty that the next administration won’t eliminate tariffs..
Yes, let's enforce the law. We could start with Trump.
Bruh
The Dems did not even try until there last year how smart was that
you went after a presidential political opponent..... THATS SHAMEFUL AND UN-AMERICAN
8 years no convictions. Put down the pipe.
Are you aware that the super rich don't have to pay taxes?
A tariff is a tax placed on imports/exports. Companies are going to increase prices to offset that and you as a taxpayer will pay for it
And when the price goes up, the consumer will also pay sales tax on the difference. Taxed twice.
A price worth to pay
Possibly. And possibly we'll just buy a whole lot less.
@@buzoff4642 And when we buy less, companies make less, and when companies make less, they lay off people.
@@shenmisheshou7002 Yes. They layoff people. In China, Vietnam, etc.
Very frustrated that a follow up question was not asked on tariffs. The guest seems to believe that we can unilaterally tariff imports and thus equalize US trade. As soon as we implement tariffs on imports, other countries will implement tariffs on our products driving demand for our exports down and increasing the cost of everything, foreign and domestic. There is no unilateral tariff option. Critical missed question by the host.
That’s exactly what happened in tRumps trade war with China in his first term. China retaliated by not importing US soybeans resulting in tRump sending taxpayer money to farmers to cover the resulting low prices of soybeans.
No. The math doesn’t add up. If you run a trade deficit, you have more ammunition than your trade surplus counterparts when it comes to tariff and trade retaliation. In strategic terms, the deficit country can win from a trade war dynamic.
You're 100% right. Imposing tariffs very quickly escalates into a trade war with no winners, only losers. That's why economists across the political spectrum warn against starting down this road.
As he said, we aren't exporting things.
Yess these ppl think these things happen in a vacuum, no there will be retaliatory tariffs, jus like his last term when we had to pay farmers to let crops rot cas China said naw we don't need soy beans
One reason manufacturing left the US is because environmental standards in other countries are lower, labor costs are lower, no child labor laws in many places. Is that what people want to have here again? If manufacturing comes back and practices good environmental and labor policy, costs will be higher here. If there were also many many more good jobs with benefits, maybe it could work. I am skeptical it can happen given corporate greed.
This guy is a complete liar; NAFTA was passed to destroy labor unions in America and make high profits for corporations by using slave labor overseas. Corporations still don't want to pay union wages, or they would have done it already! The USA does not have the infrastructure to manufacture products. So, tariffs will raise prices and cause inflation. Deporting immigrants would increase the cost of food; 90% of America's food comes from California. So, I suppose individuals who want to deport people want to pick vegetables? China doesn't need the USA; we comprise 4% of the global population. The USA needs China. People need to get a library card and crack a book.
Yes. They did not even talk about how long it would take to recreate millions of industrial jobs. I CAN imagine robots picking lettuce.
@@johnstewart7025lettuce for the people who can afford lettuce. Americans won’t be able to live on those wages, that’s for sure.
To be fair, he said nothing about deportations. Might be one of the points he disagrees with Trump.
The "guy" said nothing about NAFTA.
SOS, to highlight your excellent point, trumps first term tariffs on China resulted in China reducing their buying of our soybeans, which required giving massive government subsidies to farmers to the tune of $25b.. of course tax payers footed the bill..
He’s a fool to think average Americans don’t want cheapest products. Americans live for SALES! There is room for targeted tariffs but not an overall 10-20% or 60% on Chinese products. Of course what Trump says vs what he does are two completely different things. Trump mobilized the a$$holes of America with his vitriol and it worked.
First and foremost America needs a living wage, indexed for location. Then everyone can make more money, pay their fair share of taxes, and need less help from the government.
Arguably Trump is just using a classic "door in face" sales technique with the tariff threats, to secure more favourable trade deals.
The model where we buy low price/low quality items at Walmart that fail in a year (going into the landfill) and then need to be replaced is a bad one. That is largely the product of this free trade system with China. Something needs to be done about this problem.
A model where people pay more for a higher quality item that is worth paying to fix is the behavior the government should be incentivizing. Tariffs certainly don’t bring manufacturing to the US or improve the quality of products but they can help eliminate the disincentives to doing so (manufacturing being so much cheaper and easier overseas being a major disincentive)
Personally, I’m not optimistic that Trump is capable of achieving any results worth having but he is right that the role of the government should include setting rules on trade that lead to the best possible results for this country (time to admit the free trade regime isn’t leading to the best results possible)
@ couple things, people won’t reduce volume of stuff for quality of stuff. Just isn’t going to happen. The mindset of Americans is he who dies with the most stuff wins.
I disagree somewhat with your evaluation that Walmart stuff only lasts a year. I do think you can tell the difference in stuff cheaply made. China today is much like Japan of 60’s. They made cheaper stuff after WWII but shifted over time, improving quality.
@I guess I didn’t really address your initial point exactly. The problem with wages for low skilled work is that the quality of jobs available is worse than in had been before manufacturing moved out of the United States. The tariffs seem like a reasonable first step if you want to reduce the motivation of companies that sell product in the US to have their manufacturing done overseas.
The consumer may very well not be happy about the result but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
I thought he brought up some very good points to consider. I'm a progressive Dem and I think it's important for us to be open to all thought and compromise to get things done. Country before politics. Thank you PBS for showing different opinions. You don't get enough credit.
Sounds good, but trump and his rich, filthy owners won’t create jobs, so the tariffs will only add to inflation.
Yeah, but there was something wrong with his voice. He was memorizing something.😮
Yeah, but there was something wrong with his voice. He was memorizing something.😮
He wasn't speaking the truth. Something was soft about his voice in certain areas that might take all right good night.
PBS doesn’t get enough credit
Tariffs is another word for Taxes for all workers
It depends what they are on. Tariffs on Chinese clothing may just move production to Guatemala and not necessarily raise costs. Guatemala is a pro-US country with Democratic values and goals. best to support allies that are democracies although imperfect rather than authoritarian states like China
@@MrRhomas913 It takes time and money to move won't happen in the next ten years at least
the EU has a 10% tariffs on our cars... ours is 2.5% on them .... thats what trump is talking about
@@websitemartianthat’s a good argument for using the threat of tariffs to make things more equal between economies. And if other economies don’t respond, you can fulfill on the threat.
This guy insures me, we are screwed. Trump/1.3 trillion credit card debt/low unemployment/automation/MAGA/
Free trade has given Americans the highest standards of living and an abundance of goods to choose from in the markets. Tariffs will reverse that.
We have a large trade deficit now so it wasn't sustainable. We can't run deficits of 7% of GDP with growth of only 2-3% forever.
So tariffs will reverse free trade. Meaning everything will be made in America now.
It’s already happened why do you think we’re having inflation? 😂
@@tradeprosper5002Yes we can. The way you stabilize that is taxing corporations and giving the working class more tax cuts.
Where do you live, my friend? Free trade is not so free in this country anymore. When 4-5 huge corporations operate the entire market, that's not free trade, sorry. And it's valid for more industries than ever. We have anti-monopoly laws, but they are basically not enforced enough.
The highest standard of living...? Seriously? Go to China (what a paradox!) and look how they live there. Half of this country technologically lives in the 19th century and to be clear, I am not talking Amish people. Go to Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., and check their healthcare, SS systems, childcare, and education. Then you will see what are the highest standards of living, indeed!
An abundance of goods doesn't automatically mean an option for good choices. You can go to the grocery supermarket and choose cereals of almost any taste from 20 producers perhaps. Is it an abundance and good choice...? Barely.
Processed, oversweetened cereals full of artificial chemicals are things we shouldn't eat at all! And that is only one example. The highest living standard and the abundance of goods are the two biggest fallacies people think about this country. Reality is far from it!
I dislike taxes for one main reason: the government requires individuals to calculate their own taxes and imposes heavy penalties for mistakes. While I have no problem paying taxes as a US citizen, it seems strange to me that I have to do the paperwork when the government already has all the necessary information.
I don't regret the financial mistakes I've made in the past, as they've all taught me valuable lessons. However, my biggest misstep was planning my finances without consulting a licensed financial advisor.
I sought the guidance of a financial counselor, and as I near retirement, their advice has proven invaluable. I was initially concerned that compound interest on index funds wouldn’t suffice since I started investing later. It's quite amusing to realize that I’ve outperformed colleagues with more investment experience, having gained over $386k tax-free.
@@williamDonaldson432 This is definitely significant! Do you have any recommendations for professionals or advisors I could contact? I really need guidance on proper portfolio allocation.
Rebecca Lynne Buie is the coach who guides me. With years of experience in the financial markets, her strategies have worked well for me and contributed to my success. She offers clear entry and exit points for the securities I focus on
Thank you for the tip. I found your coach online and conducted my due diligence before scheduling a call. Based on her resume, she appears to be highly proficient.
Companies are in business to make money. They don't give an ef about anything else. Many US companies do not care about what is best for the country or for the working class. This guy is out of touch with reality.
To varying degree many are agreed. And the guest correctly (imo) points to the importance of labor negotiation to assist in reaching a balance in management/worker power. Reagan's success in stifling unions and this trend continuing to recent times has definitely contributed to imbalance in corporate power visavis their workers. I was heartened to hear the guest agree.
Sorry. I simply just don't think this is correct. I've seen business running in the red while trying to avoid laying people off. I came from a family business that workers were paid first, even if hardly anything was left. It's not that simple. And when you look at products on the market and prices you must surely realize companies aren't making money on some of those products. They may actually be losing money on some. Yet they make them anyway, knowing someone needs that item at that price point. And they hope to make money on other items. Or look at the automobile industry. People now upset because some of the lower entry level cars were done away with. The manufacturers made those cars for years, not really making money on them. Often losing money. There are still many 25k cars on the market. Accounting for inflation they aren't more expensive than 20 years ago. The manufacturers don't make money on them, if any. Just retooling to manufacture a car is millions of dollars invested. I was shopping for a wash machine (lots of choices) but actually found a decent priced heavy duty basic model. Basically, rugged and cheap. I doubt the manufacturer makes much money on it. I think it probably makes more on the fancy models to make up for that? But either way they made a sturdy basic model lower priced for a consumer like myself. Even though I doubt they had much of a profit. Pay better attention to the products on the market. How things operate. Yes, it's profit. But.. it's not all about JUST profit.
Many things are made, operate at a potential loss or break even to keep people employed or someone getting a product they need. You'll notice if you look at any product line you'll usually find a model in there the company really isn't making money on or might lose money on. They still generally think of ALL consumers.
And why should they? I mean the very basis of free enterprise is to allow businesses to make as much money as they can. They would have destroyed the environment if they Hippies in the 60s had not started to warn us of the damage that corporate America was doing to the environment, and the goverment had to step in an create a lot of rules and regulations to protect the air we breath and the water we drink. The GOP would like us to end those protections, and protections for workers. A lot of GOP voters think that goverment has too many rules for businesses, but as a hippie from the 60s, who remembers Love Canal (and if you don't know about Love Canal, try googling it), and in my opinion, free enterprise, left unchecked, would destry our ecology.
The reality is, either the US jacks up tariffs to onshore, or, US goes bankrupt in the Buy Chinese model, as a net importing nation.
Blame Milton Friedman who said companies only have obligations to their shareholders.
@vha111 Also, blame Warren Buffett said, paraphrasing, "THE riches won the class warfare in US".
sure, you are a shareholder? Would you want to use your money for public?
@ Yes, if it promotes social stability, general happiness, and greater prosperity for the country. That was the prevailing corporate philosophy before Friedman and it was working.
Why would you blame him for simply stating this fact. Back in the 1950s, the chairman of IBM, which was one of the fastest growing companies in the world said "IBM Existist to return a dividend to the shareholder." This is in fact the foundation of the free enterprise system. Friedman was simply stating a reality.
@@vha111that is not true, America exists because people have their freedom and independence. If this government want to force people on how to to use their money, people will revolt. Shareholders are people, and they have the freedom on how to use their wealth and it is natural to use the wealth for their own good. The shareholders own the corporate America and the corporate first priority is to be responsible for shareholders, and abide by the law.
Oren Cass blatantly lies directly to everybody's face . He did not talk about higher wage , lack of industrial clusters , With the illusion that Tariff would solve everything . Why he did not talk about hoover 's Tariff before 1929 .
Because he’s not an illiterate simpleton maybe. I think you are missing what smoot hawley actually tells us about interventionism.
Any time anyone references 1929 as proof how bad tariffs are clearly doesn’t know much about American or global economic history. Here’s how.
The U.S., since 1896, ran large and growing trade surpluses-it was the most dependent large country on foreign demand to maintain employment. Since 1830, the U.S. had the highest tariffs in the world. The U.S. grew faster than any country on earth, with the most protectionist and interventionist government. It’s insane to blame tariffs for the Great Depression but not notice how the U.S. got wealthy in the first place!
Smoot hawley in 1929, 100 years after implementing tariffs on foreign goods, American policymakers got cocky and figured they could take even more from the world by doubling down on protectionism. They overplayed their hand.
A better analogy would be if China (large country most dependent on its trade surplus) initiated a trade war that generates trade retaliation (Trump). The surplus country is the first mover here and is in a much weaker position. 1929 actually demonstrates that a trade surplus country should move towards free trade. It says nothing about deficit countries. But the British did the opposite and grew faster than both the U.S. and Germany (the largest trade surplus countries of the time). The U.S. now is the 1929 UK, and China is 1929 USA.
Properly tax corporations and the wealthy.
He makes a modest case for tariffs, still very weak. Our manufacturing and trade for the last 50 years has been directed by Republicans policies , yes with a boost by Clinton also. Obama did try to get manufacturing back , but hit a roadblock after 2 years when the Republicans took the house and would not bipartisan anything
@@MarkV007 Reagan led to huge manufacturing jobs cut in only 2 years
..185 k auto and 200k manufacturing jobs lost in his forst two yrs ...mergers were a huge part of that as well. Carter had a 80billion dollar deficit....Reagan, in his final year, had a 140.billion dollar deficit. Reagan has ro eaise tax rate up because it was tanking the economy and making the govt poor.
@@stephenphillips6245that’s not even close to true 😭
It is ludicrist to think tariffs will improve things in the US. It is double tax on the consumer. The corporations will pass on the tariff to the consumers, and the states and cities will tax the cost the tariff adds to the purchased good. Also, even illegal immagrints won't work for $1 an hour, which is what workers in foreigh textile and shoe factories make. For what you would pay workers in the US, you could buy the good overseas and fill a bunch of containers on ships, and still make more money. Now if you are slective with your tariffs, such as tafiffs on Chinese EVs or pickup trucks, you can get some production to move to the US. This was what happenend with the US put tariffs on imported pickup trucks. Toyota built a giant plant in San Antonio. I am not saying tariffs are bad, but I am saying that tariffs should be selective. Harely Davidson had to start builing motorcycles overseas because many contries put tariffs on HD products. So it can work against you too. If countries retalieate, US businesses that do international trade may see their products faced with tariffs, decreasing demand.
This policy will result in Americans having to consume less (actually good), pay more for everything, higher taxes and less services from the government, and risk the world moving on from the dollar. Without the world using the dollar to trade the US will have to balance it’s budget or risk a massive economic pain.
Hardly. You can track the reduction of tariffs following WWII with the increase in wealth in the U.S. Reagan did impose a 75% tariff on Japanese automobile imports, which, one, reduced the number of Japanese vehicles imported into the U.S., and it also made Japanese vehicles more expensive. The tariffs also made domestic vehicles more expensive because domestic auto makers had less competition, and with the increased cost of Japanese vehicles, domestic automobile manufacturers were free to increase their prices, completely independent of their manufacturing costs.
It also made Japanese manufacturers open auto plants HERE IN AMERICA!
I get your point but correct me if I'm wrong didn't it also play a role in getting foreign auto companies to build manufacturing plants here ? Thereby providing good American employment and the ripple effect of boosting US business that services the auto business.
@@dsdwtn5911 I don't think there is a question that the tariffs were good for the autoworkers. Detroit began charging more for cars, and while the foreign auto companies now manufacture more cars than the domestic auto manufacturers, the parts for those vehicles are generally manufactured outside the U.S., and the assembly takes place here. The foreign car companies decided that assembling cars here was cheaper than assembling them overseas, and then shipping them here. My guess is that they can assemble more here than they can assemble there, and ship here. Closer to market, as it were.
Japanese electronics were also subject to tariffs. But Japanese companies did not relocate assembly to the U.S., which could be assembled and still shipped in mass quantity. I'd argue that the tariffs did not cause Japanese auto manufacturers to assemble cars in the U.S., but rather they could sell more cars assembling in the U.S. rather than assembling in Japan, and then shipping to the U.S.
But that was not the point of Reagan's tariffs, which was to deter the purchase of Japanese vehicles and encourage the purchase of domestically made vehicles.
But the point here is that tariffs are inflationary. Car prices went up. Auto workers benefitted. The consumer lost. What happens to the farmer if China decides to stop importing American produce?
@@CarlGerhardt1 Not really. Tariffs were also applied to Japanese electronics. Japanese companies did not relocate manufacturing of electronics to the U.S. because they can still ship massive amounts of electronics rather efficiently. Motor Vehicles take more space. Harder to ship efficiently in quantity. Japanese auto manufacturers began assembling in the U.S. because they could satisfy the demand easier by assembling here than assembling in Japan, and then shipping to the U.S. Volkswagen was the first foreign auto manufacturer to assemble cars in the U.S., and they weren't subject to huge tariffs. They assembled in the U.S. because it was easier to get a higher quantity of cars into dealers hands by driving them over a highway from the plant than hauling them on a large ship across the ocean, and then hauling a smaller quantity over a highway.
@@redrustler1 Thanks for your thoughts. On your question, I'd say find and develop new markets. I'm no expert in this arena but I do think we need to stop so much dependance with China and focus on working with countries that are allies. Mexico has been getting a lot of good business press lately. I think the expert in the PBS clip made a good point that we really haven't had free trade for a long time given all the subsidies etc that China implements. I enjoyed our chat.
Given the title of this video... My expectation was that this guy was going to make argument and defensive of tariffs from the standpoint of economics. It didn't take very long to recognize that the impetus of his argument revolves around politics... To Wit: nationalism. He made no single salient point couched in quantitative engendered context.
And he's suddenly insistent on law.
“quantitative engendered context” 😂😂😂
@@alanfarrance8639This campaign with the objective of dumbing down the U.S... one can only hope that it is at least not a domestically spawned initiative.
@@alanfarrance8639it has been my observation there is a reliance by so many that Americans care so much about so little.
Every GOP President since Hoover has had a Recession all of them including Trumpy. Buckle Up 😂😂😂
We are already going in one. Don't blame trump
I don't think we are talking about a recession, I think we are talking about annther great depression. All of the ingredients are in place. Florida alone will see one of the greatesed destrucctions of wealth in modern times. Insurance costs in Florida will skyrocket, and homes will sometime become un-sellable, and when that happens, that is a decrease in the money supply. It is as if that money was simply burned. Some will walk away from their flood damaged homes because they can't afford to fix them and the Socialist Citizen insurance company created by the state, is only paying out about half the claims. Condo owners are seeing massive assesements due to new laws that require that buildings be inspected and serioud problems be corrected, causing some associants to levy new assocation set asides of up to $150,000, which many of the owners can't afford. Once again, some of them will be forced to sell their condos at cheap prices, and more value will be lost. I believe that we are looking at a massive transfer of wealth form the poor to the wealth, and if Trump does everything he said he would do, we will be in recession by the end of 2025, and a great depression by the end of 2026.
@@itsallminor6133Trump will have us 😅
In my lifetime (64 years old) all the major catastrophic economic events happened under republican administrations. Although you cannot place the blame on a lot of what happened on them, somehow people always think that what republicans can do will help the economy.
@@stananderson4524 In the last 50 years, the biggest market increases have been under Democrats, and the federal debt usually does better under Democrats, and when they are in power, the GOP cuts taxes, but then complains about the national debt. I give Trump some slack though, becaues Covid was a difficult situation.
Across the board tariffs don’t make more sense and aren’t more free market because there are many industries that don’t even exist in the US and those tariffs hurt the consumer unnecessarily. They are pointless when not used with a particular strategy or industrial policy behind them.
“we’re the most productive in the world” but we have to “make the workforce more productive”? well which is it?
France is pretty productive. They treat employees like gold. His combination works for the productivity and the happiness quotient.
To be clear, the guest stated that American workforce was most productive in world.
@ and you don’t think by using “we’re” i was referring to American?
More productive to keep the rate of growth of profits.
Did you know that China now outsources to Vietnam?
No cap on greed.
Tariffs would level the supply side of the game, however it will disproportionately place the burden on the lower and middle class. The US needs to level our income inequity. Claiming that foreign corporations are greedy and need to be held in check while US corporations are fair and altruistic is ridiculous. Taxes (tariffs) and regulations for everyone except the large corporations and the wealthiest is imbalanced, dangerous and downright foolish.
I wish the interviewer had asked Mr. Cass what happens when the countries that have tariffs put on them respond with tariffs of their own. I can see tariffs being used on a case by case basis with countries that are already engaged in some form of protectionism against us. Tariffs could also help us protect certain industries vital to our national security but I'm unconvinced that blanket tariffs, as Mr. Cass suggests, with all our trading partners worldwide are a magical solution to all our economic troubles.
That's what happened with Trump and his trade war with China. Trump had to bail out US farmers who couldn't sell their soybeans to China. The bailout cost US taxpayers $38 billion.
That far this "scholar" doesn't think, of course.
Your answer can be found in Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. The U.S. slapped broad based tariffs on goods. 25 countries replied in kind. The result was, shall we say, depressing!
And that brings up a point not mentioned: broad tariffs will result in not only higher prices for incoming goods but a reduction in goods being exported.
Nike can’t open up shoe factories in the U.S. tomorrow. Apple isn’t capable of making phones here at the drop of a hat.
It is possible that some countires will do so, such as was the case with Harley Davidson. Of course HD's response was to start building some motorcycles outside of the United States. HD fan boys and girls beat up HD for the decision, but the root cause was the cost of labor and tariffs.
Because he’s not an illiterate simpleton maybe. I think you are missing what smoot hawley actually tells us about interventionism.
Any time anyone references 1929 as proof how bad tariffs are; they prove they clearly don’t know much about American economic history. Here’s how.
The U.S., since 1896, ran large and growing trade surpluses-it was the most dependent large country on foreign demand to maintain employment. Since 1830, the U.S. had the highest tariffs in the world. The U.S. grew faster than any country on earth, with the most protectionist and interventionist government. It’s insane to blame tariffs for the Great Depression but not notice how the U.S. got wealthy in the first place!
Smoot hawley in 1929, 100 years after implementing tariffs on foreign goods, American policymakers got cocky and figured they could take even more from the world by doubling down on protectionism. They overplayed their hand.
A better analogy would be if China (large country most dependent on its trade surplus) initiated a trade war that generates trade retaliation (Trump). The surplus country is the first mover here and is in a much weaker position. 1929 actually demonstrates that a trade surplus country should move towards free trade. It says nothing about deficit countries. But the British did the opposite and grew faster than both the U.S. and Germany throughout the Depression (the largest trade surplus countries of the time). The U.S. now is the 1929 UK, and China is 1929 USA.
Plenty of people thought about the long term impact of globalization (e.g. 90% of advanced semiconductors manufactured in Taiwan), but nobody listened to them because "the system" was focused on driving down costs and totally ignored risk and long term. And now that the impact is becoming obvious, of course they'll pay attention. Our government, and a huge number of people have zero risk management skills.
Increasing manufacturing is not the solution as we are no longer living in the industrial age. We now live in the information age and having the world's greatest inventors, innovators, and creators is more important now. The emphasis should be on affordable higher education and funding for research and development.
The idea that this an either/or decision between jobs that require high education and those that don’t has created the current situation because not everyone is capable of working those high skill jobs (and there aren’t enough of these jobs to be had). That we encourage everyone to get college degrees and are now finding that people got degrees that don’t provide opportunities that pay sufficiently to pay off the loans is evidence of the problem we have. These folks weren’t capable of getting the marketable engineering degree and thought that any degree was better than none which, ultimately, is not correct.
So, we have traded a manufacturing economy for a service economy and this has decreased the quality of the jobs for low skill workers. This is a problem that needs to be addressed if you accept there will always be low skill workers.
We’re in a pickle where the people who benefit the most from the cheap/low quality product at Walmart are the people most hurt by the shortage of well paying/low skill jobs. Right now, when a cheap/low quality product breaks or is damaged you throw it away. Getting to a place where you pay more for the product would encourage fixing it and when you buy something new you’ll think more about quality than you do now (and consider paying more for better quality). US manufacturing has a chance to compete if quality is a bigger factor in buying decisions.
Trump-GOV: "Of the billionaires, for the billionaire, by the billionaires" ..
I wish he'd explain how he thinks tariffs will fix the problems of financialization described in his (excellent, highly recommended) essay "The Rise of Wall Street and the Fall of American Investment." Tilting the tables in favor of American companies isn't going to help much when shareholders use their expanded profits on stock buybacks and other speculative forms of savings rather than investment. He gestures at boosting worker power but I doubt anyone believes the Republican donor base of bosses is going to allow that to happen in any meaningful way beyond the superficial culture war stuff
I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but I do think a simple, consistent tariff, as the guest supports could be worthwhile.
By being broad, covering everything from Albania to Zambia, it could be lower.
By being across the board, it makes sure countries don't feel like they were being unfairly targeted.
It would also avoid having the government pick winner and losers.
On the down side, it will increase prices; that's what a tariff (better name would be 'import tax') is designed to do. If it doesn't raise prices it's not doing its job.
And it would take some time for domestic manufacturing to be re-established. For textiles, maybe a few months to year.
For more complex manufacturing, it could be years.
And of course, other nations can and will reciprocate, so we shouldn't expect to be able to export much.
Finally, many in the administration would prefer to have import tax revenue to reduce income tax revenue. This obviously benefits those with higher incomes (i.e. the Trump mob).
ps. Several of the Presidents he identified as supporting tariffs were in office when that was the main source of federal tax revenue. The Federal income tax was not instituted until 1913, well after most of them presided.
This is a sensible discussion of the benefits of tariffs, encouraging US made manufacturing... but Trump's purpose seems purley puntative, extortionary and thuggish.
There are many well written comments. Many seem to have some level of experience or education in this area of discussion. In my mind, there or those who believe on- shoring/returning manufacturing to the US will happen almost overnight. It won't. If it does occur, it will take years. Lots of years. Putting up a building is the easy part. Supply chain, raw materials, labor, and so on are the hard parts. So, how many Americans would be willing to sit behind a sewing machine for 6 - 8 hours with minimal health care coverage?
lots of good points on the benefits of tariffs. Louisiana shrimp fishers benefited from the tariffs Trump put in place during his last administration where their product was cheaper than Chinese imports; these are now gone and the fishers are back in poverty. Some quibbles however - WHO will pick the vegetables and fruits? I have read books where white American workers decided to write on the experiences of the illegal workers in the fields, and they found the work unbelievably hard. In the UK since Brexit and the shortage of foreign workers, farmers are leaving crops in the fields because they cannot get them harvested. They have tried hiring local workers, who last on average a couple of days. Historically workers would come into the US during harvest season and then go back again; it was easy. Now, with the difficulties of getting work visas and the terrible conditions obtaining in many South American countries (often due to the War on Drugs and gangs imported from the US) people get here and stay if they can. All of this needs to be readdressed, but I doubt if it will be - build a few camps, get the max publicity out of it, then forget about a rational response to the problem.
Sorry, Mr Isaacson, I greatly respect you as a researcher, historian, and even interviewer in most cases, but you just don't have the chops for this interview.
His central argument that tariffs are good for the balance of trade is fine. BUT, the major reason Trump was voted into office was because people are NOT receiving the economic benefits of a roaring economy under Biden. How is the average American, who is not a business owner, and will have weaker labor protections as he points out, going to be any better off with tariffs across the board? That should have been your main question along with more probing questions on why he views the same remedies around be used when am economy is doing well and we all are benefiting from cheap Chinese goods for all sectors. Jeffrey Sachs could wipe the floor with this guy.
If you actually listen to the unspoken part, you'd hear that poor people should not expect to be able to buy whatever they want. Millionaires and billionaires are telling working-class people that maybe they don't need so many choices in goods. At the same time they are doing this, they are planning to cut government spending. Which is a euphemism for cutting entitlement programs and social safety nets. So at a time poor folks will be able to afford less; they are going to get less help. Well, America, you gave them a mandate. People get the government they deserve.
Interesting that he wants to enforce the law and also seems to have no problem with the next president.
He suggests converting a marketplace of lowest cost products made overseas to a marketplace of higher cost products made here. Do we have a manufacturing infrastructure ready to produce quickly, and a labor force willing to work for lower wages? The cost of domestic products will also rise to just below the tariff premium, so there will be inflation for both foreign made and competing domestic products. And it is unlikely that domestic producers will pay premium wages.
Hard to take seriously apparently wealthy people saying "Sure there will be some problems now, but the future would be better" when everything costs too much for many people now.
Yes, if people thought inflation was bad before, wait to see what happens now. In fact, tariffs are a double tax. The first tax is when the company passed the cost of the tariff to the consumer. The second is when the cites, counties, and states add sales tax to the increased purchase price of the goods. For a party that is anti-tax, the GOP seems to have just decided that a tax on poor people is not a big deal.
We can't make everything here and our labor costs are much higher then Mexico, India, Cambodia, Vietnam, China etc. Look around your house from clothes to what is in your kitchen and see where it came from. American companies will have to take less of a profit (which they won't do) or increase the cost of that product and pass that onto us the consumer. And tax cuts only help the wealthy and corporations and increases our national debt. Taxes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations needs to go up to pay down our national debt. Nobody wants to talk about how much debt we have. Tax cuts have never lowered the debt. Great interview and PBS you do great work!
Holy cow!
Industry doesn't want it, so it must be BAD! Yeah, that's it, they'll just keep raising their prices til riots break out over the 3 raisins in the store! Yeah! That'll happen.
Where will money collected from tariffs go?
@@flyingartgirls1 Fed pockets.
I mean, I know a lot of people suffer, but I’ll be OK😂😂😂😂😂
I mean if people didn't want tariffs and price hikes on practically everything why did they vote for Trump? Pretty straightforward either had more inflation or less inflation. People said they wanted more inflation and higher prices
Who says everything will cost more?
Where's the idea come from that max profit has to be maintained?
Where's the idea come from that jacking up prices, rather than reduce profits is inevitable? That people will keep buying at jacked up prices?
Because Max Profit says so?
@buzoff4642 if you add x% tariff onto the price of any item. What do you think happens? The company is out of the goodness of their heart just decide to eat it on the margin? They're going to pass it all on to us. We pay for the tariffs. It's what people voted for, it's what they want. Higher prices. This is first year college stuff. If you have a $1 item made elsewhere and it normally retails for $2, when you place a 25% tariff on it it becomes $1.25 and retail becomes 2.50. this is common knowledge. If a company is worried about losing business they may eat some of that but that just compresses their earnings. This is part of how the tax cuts for the wealthy are being funded
@@gen-X-trader If a company is losing business they will eat some of that and it compresses their earnings. And if tariffs are high enough, either they onshore the work, or some other company does.
The presumption that people will pay anything for [x] is built on market monopoly, and market monopoly is sole source built from offshoring to cheapest least regulated on the planet. Which serves solely excessively greedy shareholders.
This Cass guy is really a piece of work. I doubt if he has studied economics ever.
Theory. Economics is theory. And the current variant is toxic.
Obviously he's interviewing for a job in the Trump administration
@ 5:25 Wrong. U.S. companies moved overseas for cheaper labor.
Yeah, I love how he is complaining about how the other countries didn’t play by the rules?!? No, there government realized that they were going to suffer and decided to help industry out…we should have done the same thing. But that would be anti capitalist…
It was not only cheaper labor, but that is major part of it. A big component though was for many manufacturing processes, such as tanning leather for shoes, a lot of really nasty chemcial are used, and in the US, many of these chemcials were finding their way into the drinking water. If you are not famaliar with Love Canal, google it. Paper companies are massive polluters, as was the steel industry. If you don't remember Acid Rain, google it. I am old enough to remember how severe the environmental impact of manufactureing was. Of course the Federal Goverment put in those pesky regulations to keep companies from killing us, and this made many factories incapable of being updated in a finanaically profitable way, and with unions pushing for ever more pay and benefits, many companies looked at all of these factors and said they would just produce in places like China, which is now facing the same enormous consequences of big businessies being unchecked and destryoing the environment. China is poisinning it watar, ground, and air the way we did. On a business trip to BeiJing in 2004, I almost could not breath because the air was so rancid. Anway, it was not JUST lanbor costs that drove a lot of manufacturing out of the US, but the steel industry was probably the most affected, but at the same time, they were probably the biggest polluter.
Here is a great map that shows what I am talking about in the changes to air quality that the EPA made. If you don't know what acid rain was, it was exactly what the name implies. When it would rain, the rain would carry particales of chemcial on to the surface, and it would create an acid so powerful, it would eat the paint off of cars. The third map, the annual wet sulphate, is acid rain, and the steel industry was responsible for most of it. www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program-results Now the steel companies could have updated the plants (a few were updated) but the cost of the updates and the pounding of Union drums for higher wages meant that it suddenly became cheaper to import steel.
@@veliveli8996 You have to be kidding? Just how much bailout monies should they get, for cryin' out loud?!?
Interesting to hear someone suggest that tarriffs could be a balancing force while acknowledging that tax cuts didn't trickle down.
Gut & Privatize the American Economy was Rayguns idea , so was "Let's Make America Great Again " 😑
Gotta pay for billionaires tax cuts somehow.
.
The old idea that people only by imports because they are cheaper doesn't really apply anymore. Many times those imports are not only cheaper, but the quality is better. He also isn't taking under considerarion the state of society in America. Education is damn near frowned on. It will take decades to bring manufacturing back to the US and that is very questionable.
Your guest is good spokesman for his views. Thanks.
Minute 14 this guest states the basic starting point is basic respect for the law.
Oops he just disqualified the stain an adjudged rapist and lifetime financial fraudster.
$9,000 for an i phone made in the good old USA ..I can hardly wait.
$150 a pair for your new Levis.
How is it you just make this BS up?
@@alviverdeusSome pairs of Levi’s already cost that much in Canada. I buy a lot of Apple products, the components of which often come from Taiwan, China, South Korea, and more recently India, so this is going to hurt. As the value of the Canadian dollar goes down, the price of almost everything we import is going to go up because so much is priced in U.S. dollars. I’m going to have to pay more for subscriptions, including the one that lets me watch TH-cam ad-free.
At least we grow our own food here and are energy self-sufficient. I’m going to sit out the next few years not buying much stuff. I wish we’d get out of NAFTA and NORAD (NATO is OK) and join the EU, but that’s wishful thinking.
I missed the part where he said corporations were happy to take advantage of free trade to get cheaper goods that they could sell to Americans for a little cheaper cost to consumer AND (still) larger proffit to themselves. Those cheaper goods were not directly available to the consumer ... there was no Temu in the 1980's.
This is likely going to change. There is new Biden tariff being considered that will require that people using TEMU and other companies register with the goverment, and pay tariffs on the goods they buy, or the company will have to collect the tariffs at the time of sale and send the money to the US goverment. Either way, if this tariff is put into place, it will be difficult for these companies to sell directly. The good news is that in this case, it is possible that some of them will open distrubtion warehouses in the US, but the big benefit of shipping from China was that due to the way the postal agreements work, they could mail you a package for a couple of bucks and have the US Postal Service deliever it to your door for less than it costs us to send a package down the street.
Canard - no one likes playing taxes. I do. It’s worth it to live here. The value is amazing for everything from safety, health, culture, people, everything.
Without domestic manufacturing infrastructure we're in for a world of hurt with tariffs and the inflation they will necessarily cause. In a couple/few years, after we invest billions of dollars in domestic manufacturing infrastructure, inflation will then come back down. Not sure we have the intellect or will to make that investment.
The current political argument for tariffs with " yes it will do damage but we will benefit in the long term". This guy ignores the economic realities of tariffs along with retaliation by other guy and deals in wishful thinking. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but when they ae presented as possible facts - well that belongs on FOX not on PBS.
The views/prescriptions OFFERED by guest were just that. As are yours.
Because "the GOP are all about good wages and better standards of living for workers" and a better safety net .. (GMAB) ..
Mr. Cass makes a great deal of sense. I am ashamed I had never heard of him.
He talks China this, China that, and then they slap 25% tariff on CANADA.
Ok, enforce the laws then bring trump to trial on all accounts.
Well, the president won't be able to get his Bible from China no more😮
Golden agesfor the richest
This guy is all over the place. Please choose better guests in the future.
So, tariffs are really taxpayers paying for US manufacturing jobs. Kind of socialism of employment.
Love the whining when an iota of attention is given to the general welfare but the Libertarian bow to billions in silence going to bailouts and general gifting to wall st.
Worker power!? He’s no conservative, that’s not remotely what they want.
Europe has put excessive taxes on American tobacco, so it's only fair that America puts taxes on European goods
tobacco products cause cancer.
WTF does "Conservativism" have to do with a discussion about Trump-GOP / Trump-ism ..
Somethings cheaper? It made many, many things cheaper.
Getting all the infrastructure in place for making chips, and taking into consideration that loads of parts we need to produce the chips come from other countries, it's gonna take a long, long time to get them online. Do they have a plan for what we'll do during a long process of our industries catching up?
And that’s just CHIPS!
Excellent interview. This man’s views are very down to earth and in that sense, they represent what the vast majority of American people really wants.
The elites have much to answer for.
So you want to make stuff, where are the workers? Deported is where.
Oren Cass is right on! We need people like Cass making economic decisions for the country. I hope the Trump administration consults with Oren Cass.
The question is how long will it take to reestablish American manufacturing? If the companies were here but factories are underutilized it would work. But when we don’t have the infrastructure we will be dealing with inflation for a very very long time. You can’t only do tariffs without an industrial plan.
Never thought i would see it. NPR is bending the knee. Other countries did not follow the rules last time, so we are going to change the rukes, and now they will miraculously follow them.
so by extension he just claims that Chinese EVs are built by slave workers, maybe DJI drones are as well... does that mean slaves can produce more advanced products than free men? 😮 isn't freedom supposed to bring out creativity?
I wonder where we’re hiding all that slave labour in Canada. Oh yes, we probably have hundreds of thousands working in those clandestine fentanyl labs.
he makes typical usa mistake of assuming that its only labor that counts. the chinese industrial ecosystem cannot be duplicated.
If tariffs cause people to buy American-made goods, they will be buying them at higher prices than pre-tariff. We will be abandoning the benefits of comparative advantage as explained by David Ricardo.
Please look up economist Alan Blinder on Wikipedia and the section, “Criticism of consumption-focused economics.”
Alan says people care more about their jobs than about buying a bunch of cheap stuff, in the form of a rhetorical question. Then he says, *_“That would mean economists have been barking up the wrong tree for more than two centuries.”_*
Now, Alan Blinder was in the Clinton administration. So, we have centrists from both left and right saying a lot of the same thing.
Similar to Oren Cass here saying it’s not just the size of the economic pie but also the workers baking it. 😜
Who wouldn’t love American-made products as long as they’re affordable to the average consumers.
Tariffs are the wrong approach to US competitiveness. Like rent control is the wrong solution for reducing housing cost. Populism is a disease.
If anyone pays taxes, then EVERYONE should pay taxes. C’mon!
Amanapour & Co…what are doing having this guy on your broadcast? What a disgrace
I was interested in the guest's views. Am pleased Amanapour & Co chose to give the man an opportunity to share his views. The last 10 years or so has been, imo, too much debate withing our own silos. The self-reflective echo was becoming horrible.
@@knolltop314 fair enough, perhaps my comment was somewhat heavy handed. I’m just disappointed that there wasn’t a more robust challenge to this guest’s main taking points, many of which are deliberate obfuscations of facts , historical , economic realities etc…some are outright falsehoods . This is an endemic, widespread problem with mainstream media. I expect a little more from PBS.
His tariff talking points are false..and why recent history, economic reality assures us that they will fail..why?
-a tariff is a tax on consumers, with a disproportionate negative affect on lower income Americans.
-many American manufacturers rely on a global supply chain to successfully produce their products, especially rare earth metals which China recently announced they reduce in response to Trump’s tariff plans
- it will be impossible despite our best efforts to re-shore business in a time line that would offset the negative affects of tariff war
-The US consumes far more than it produces, China produces far more than it consumes. See US current account deficits on FRED website
-US manufacturers often raise prices to match imports creating upward inflationary pressures across the US economy
-Trump’s 2017 Tariff, scheduled to expire next month failed…completely failed…see Current Account deficits timeline 2017-2020..FRED
-the US dollar is the default currency in nearly all global trade transactions
There you have just one aspect among others that conspire to run the US economy into the ground…good luck
@@knolltop314I agree. I’ve been reading some writings by right-wing academics and even watching interviews with Peter Thiel to get a better grasp on where these ideas come from.
They picked the wrong person to interview for this episode. There’s little depth to what he’s saying.
Fortunately, PBS is still publicly funded. You can expect more bias in the future. Comcast is spinning off MSNBC (biased as well, even if I tend to agree with them most of the time)and CNN because they’re becoming unprofitable while Fox News is getting an increasing share of viewership. The quality of programming is likely to deteriorate further.
We sent manufacturing abroad to strengthen imperial dominance. We wanted dollars embedded into all countries economies world wide. We needed to export USD. We did that with trade deficits. Now everyone wants to "dedollarize" but those countries owe debts in USD. They need dollars! You can't quit the USD very easily.
BRICS is working on providing alternate finance now.
@tradeprosper5002 alternative ways to trade using alternate currency is a yes. Alternative financing is not really there yet. The USD is still King financing unit globally. One thing that I personally distrust, but they are way ahead on is CBDC.
Tie the tariffs to currency levels. Otherwise countries will devalue their currency to get around the tariff.
They’ll make the workforce “more productive” by not allowing overtime pay, by making people work 16 hours a day. This is going to suck for the elderly, infirm, single parents and the average American. No guarantees the companies will bring back factories and jobs here regardless of tariffs. Historically speaking the costs will be passed onto the consumers.
Pipe dream. Giving worker a living salary and raise terrify by 10% across the board and expected American to buy American made products?
If people that are well paid would sacrifice income for a balanced budget, it would be American heroism.
10% higher price is too much. People want it cheapest. And you want corporate owners to invest in productivity to pay more when they can just get cheap workers? Sorry.
American companies will NEVER give up their profits. They will leave America before they give up their profits. Nothing is less loyal than a corporation.
tariffs are just a way of closing the us economy to imports, with the intent of keeping capital in the country. it’s economic protectionism , which did us just fine for the vast majority of our history.
Apple is an easily understood illustration of how sick the US enterprise model has been. Apple's top market cap came from paying Foxconne a low price for an iPhone, packaging it in a pretty box, and charging the highest price for a phone. It had to come to an end.
I have to shake head when I see advertisements that say "made in America". What goes into the goods produced in America is more compilcated that just buying something with a flag on it, thinking the whole thing was made in a factory in the United States.
I don't know what kind of ivory tower Owen lives in but given the choice, an employer will always pay shit wages. And while I agree we should be enforcing the law on immigration, I'll give you three guesses as to who has impeded immigration reform at every turn since Reagan (hint: it's the GOP).
The consumer will pay the tariff, and they pay sales tax on the tariff.
Bianna Golodryga is dreamy. 😍