Category: international affairs

Categories
free trade & free markets international affairs tax policy

Trump’s Tariff Question

China, trade, war, tariffs, economy

If Donald Trump fails to re-​take the White House in November (and then for real in early 2025), his legacy may quickly devolve into a matter for historians, not live politics. After people calm down and the culture war stuff recedes (once again, if allowed by events), what will be left to argue over are a half-​dozen major issues, which include war, mass migration … and tariffs.

Tariffs have long been Mr. Trump’s major hobby horse; he gets excited about 100 percent levies. The whole business about the “bloodbath” quote was his insistence that American auto industry will be destroyed if Trump himself doesn’t get the chance to erect ultra-​high tariffs against automobiles from Mexico.

Trump looks at tariffs on foreign goods as harming foreign nations and helping us, the Americans.

But it is worth noting that economists from Adam Smith and David Ricardo onward have regarded tariffs as chiefly harming consumers within the country that erects them. 

At Reason you can read Veronique de Rugy make the classic free-​trade case, anew, in “No, Trump-​Style Tariffs Do Not Grow the Economy.” If Frédéric Bastiat didn’t convince you, maybe de Rugy will.

But something’s missing. Surrounding Trump’s talk against free trade in general and China in particular there was always another element that neither Bastiat nor de Rugy emphasize: free-​trading with China helps Chinese and Americans, sure; gotcha — but it also helps the Chinese state, and its ruling Communist Party. 

“Trump is an avowed restrictionist on both immigration and trade,” de Rugy writes. But both unchecked immigration and free trade present problems not economic so much as political. It’s about real bloodbaths, actual warfare, not metaphorical ones.

Even if Trump misdiagnosed the domestic economy, he saw problems with China perhaps more clearly than anyone else.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Home of the Brave

South China Sea, China, Taiwan, war

Another incident of China’s militarized coast guard ramming a Filipino vessel in the South China Sea hundreds of miles from China … this time with 60 Minutes on board. 

We are headed toward World War III. People deserve the truth from those who pretend to lead.

Years ago, I would have advocated bringing our troops home. Today, I think it’s too late. A military pullout by the United States would be disastrous for both Asia and us. And anything less will require standing up to China. Now or later.

Not to mention that ending the U.S. role in Asia is not even being discussed. 

Which means that U.S. assets in the region will eventually be attacked. Already we see the harassment of Taiwan and the bullying of the Philippines and others in the South China Sea. The U.S. has treaty commitments to fight for Japan, South Korea and the Philippines — plus, through the Taiwan Relations Act, we have pledged to help Taiwan stay free.

I would therefore call for spending more on the military. On weapons of war. On military capabilities half a world away. (Hard to believe it myself.) And I would prepare the country for the horrific possibility of war.

I think that is the only way to back China down from its aggressions against just about every neighbor as well as the rule-​based international order and, ultimately, us. 

The best news on this front is that the U.S. is not having to beg and plead for support for an alliance to check China or to go it alone:

  • Germany just sent warships through the Taiwan Strait for the first time in two decades. 
  • Taiwan has nearly doubled its defense spending. 
  • Japan is doubling its military spending and mending relationships in the region to form closer alliances. 
  • The Philippines has given the U.S. four bases in strategic territory.
  • Even Vietnam has befriended the U.S. 

Why? All fear China. 

Right now what the world needs is an alliance of the free. And a leader … to be very brave.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

So It’s War, Then?

South China Sea, war, Donald Trump,

About the South China Sea situation, what needs to be said?

Not about it, but to the Chinese government.

“We’ve said everything we possibly can say,” Gatestone Institute senior fellow Gordon Chang told Fox Business News, expounding on what he thinks the United States’ next step should be. “We are done talking with you and we’re now going to start to act. And in the South China Sea, unfortunately that means we need to flood the zone with the U.S. Navy and Air Force to show that we will defend our ally the Philippines.”

This is, he explains, “one of those moments like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Poland in 1939. It’s that serious.”

Serious, indeed: ominous. I think he’s likely correct, but he’s talking about possible escalation to war.

My Trumpian friends will insist upon raising this niggling little thought: the slide into war in the South China Sea “would never have happened under Trump.”

China’s ramped-​up belligerence does seem to have spiked with Biden as president, just as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would have been far less likely under Trump’s leadership. 

Gordon Chang is correct that “the Biden” has “been talking to the Chinese intensively throughout the Biden Administration and things have only gotten worse” — but was this the best that could have been done? Has the Biden’s diplomacy been enough talk of the right kind?

Trump scared China. 

He also scared our Deep State.

We may have been safer then.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs social media

Banned in Brazil

Brazil, censorship, authoritarianism, mind control

Twitter is being banned in Brazil by a “Supreme Court justice” who seems to be the de facto ruler of the country. Who is also threatening Brazilians with massive fines, $8,900 USD daily, if they try to reach Twitter through a VPN.

A VPN or virtual private network hides your IP address and encrypts your web traffic. VPNs protect privacy and let you visit sites otherwise inaccessible. Sites that purvey “disinformation,” i.e., criticism of the government, and other verboten content. VPNs combat censorship and surveillance.

The justice, Alexandre de Moraes, issued an edict to ban Twitter after Twitter owner Elon Musk refused to obey censorship orders.

Twitter had told users that it expected to be shut down by Justice de Moraes “because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.”

Now Musk declares that an “unelected pseudo-​judge in Brazil is destroying [free speech] for political purposes.”

Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino adds that according to Brazil’s own constitution, “censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden.… Until there is change in Brazil, X [Twitter] will be shut down.”

Dictatorships often issue “illegal orders” in the sense that these contradict constitutional provisions whose force has faded … or that were never intended to do anything but fool people to begin with. Such political systems are not truly constitutional.

Nor would the situation be any better were the “constitution” more honest, simply announcing that whatever the dictator says goes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs social media

Give Mr. Bean Another Hearing

Mr. Bean, UK, Great Britain, censorship, mind control, authoritarianism

Twelve years ago, Rowan Atkinson of “Mr. Bean” fame took a stand against a law that criminalizes “insulting” speech. He was participating in a campaign to reform Section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986.

In his remarks launching the campaign, recently resurrected on Twitter, Atkinson said that his concern was less for himself as a person with a high public profile than “for those more vulnerable because of their lower profile. Like the man arrested in Oxford for calling a police horse gay. Or the teenager arrested for calling the Church of Scientology a cult. Or the café owner arrested for displaying passages from the Bible on a TV screen.”

And what about the thousands of cases that “weren’t quite ludicrous enough to attract media attention? Even for those actions that were withdrawn, people were arrested, questioned, taken to court and then released.… That is censoriousness of the most intimidating kind.…”

And he said more than this. Luckily it’s recorded.

This effectively delivered argument, forceful and often funny, by a well-​known personality, had its effect. The Reform Section 5 campaign succeeded. The law was amended.

But the victory, though important, was narrow. And, since that win, sweeping assaults on speech that offends somebody or other continue in Britain, the United States, and other Western countries where people should know better than to emulate the censorship of authoritarian governments to which we aspire to provide an alternative. We’re going to need a lot more funny speeches.

Because this threat to freedom is so serious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture international affairs

EU to Axe X?

Elon Musk, EU, European Union, censorship

Sandro Gozi, European Union parliament member, wants Elon Musk’s Twitter operation gone. Out of the European Union.

Not no matter what. Only if Twitter — “X” — keeps flouting the EU’s censorship rules.

Gozi says: “If Elon Musk does not comply with the European rules on digital services, the EU Commission will ask the continental operators to block X or, in the most extreme case, force them to completely dismantle the platform in the territory of the Union.”

Oh dear.

This threat comes right after EU official Thierry Breton’s threatening letter to Musk about his impending Twitter interview with Donald Trump. Musk told Breton to “[obscenity deleted]” and proceeded with the interview. Other EU arbiters of speech quickly dissociated themselves from Breton’s threat.

So maybe Gozi’s confidence about what fellow EU commissars will do if Musk does not play ball is misplaced. Perhaps the others will think about how Twitter users throughout Europe would react if their X accounts became “ex-” accounts.

Various Italian officials, Gozi’s countrymen, roundly repudiated his gabble.

“Silencing the voice of millions of people in order to strike out at those who think differently from them?” challenged Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini. “Unacceptable and disturbing.”

The political party of Giorgia Meloni issued a statement saying that the “contemporary left [are] allergic to opinions that are not aligned with their mainstream, and inquisitors of anyone who does not submit to their suffocating cloak of conformism.”

Elon Musk likely sees the truth: this fight is winnable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts