Yeah. She has some interesting insights as to how working class people are thinking (don't want handouts, but also want their lives protected from change), but her understanding of economics is terrible. I would have expected more from someone who studied at the University of Chicago.
If this site allowed images, my original post would have had a screenshot of this scene from the film with the caption: "Never had I viddied so much neoliberalism!"
Leftists like her and Ultra Nationalists that she’s embraced unfortunately have chosen the opposite… they’d rather plug their ears and yell loudly “La La La La La” than listen. I’m convinced dear leader could cause a depression and they’ll pretend nothing is wrong sooner than acknowledging the failure.
Great episode, gentlemen! While I largely agree with Scott, I also understand the frustration felt by those who might not be satisfied with an economic explainer. The “debate” has never actually been about tariffs, but around a perceived injustice.
I wonder how Scott would respond to the following questions:
1. Developed economies tend to shift towards a service-based model, but is this sustainable in the long run? While manufacturing will always be necessary, who will take on this role as economies continue to evolve? If the current economic imbalance benefits all parties, where will things settle when that imbalance no longer exists?
2. The US Navy is the sole force that enables global trade on the scale we see today and has eradicated piracy. This is solely funded by US taxpayers, regardless of whether they personally benefit from the global economy. How does this fact come into play when discussing the benefits of the global economy for the average American or the USA as a whole?
3. How do cultural differences influence the dynamics of labor practices? Large players like China excel at blurring the lines between forced and “regular” labor. Will the current model and thinking continue to be effective in an environment without forced labor or a permanent “underclass” that can be relied upon for cheap manufacturing? Similarly, how does the damage caused to American companies and workers by large-scale intellectual property theft factor into the calculations of net benefit to American citizens?
To the average working class person, the current manufacturing environment seems like a “current moment in time” thing, and it’s challenging for them to comprehend its long-term sustainability. Economics of the future are notoriously unpredictable, but I’m curious to see how someone like Scott would address these concerns, as they might alleviate some of the anxiety and sense of injustice felt by those who support the Trump tariffs (I’m not one of them!).
Suppose that I don't like tariffs. Suppose that I don't like that in some pursuits Chinese companies can outcompete American companies on price simply by using slave labor. What is a free marketer like me supposed to do with these facts? I don't like being part of a "demand" for slave labor.
You could open up free trade agreements with other nations! China is not the only country in the world desperate for work, and if you signal to the market a new place where it will be cheap to get your goods to a major market like the U.S. then you would give China a real competitor. That would actually be more effective at getting China to the negotiating table then a tariff.
I am only 25mins in so if this is addressed later please ignore (I’ll get there and respond to myself if so). I think tariffs are economically a bad idea; however, being 25mins in Scott has only addressed why they are a bad idea. Nothing he said is wrong, but I think if he was to make a strong robust argument he would address the other side and potential benefits. Some he’s hinted at but steered only into the bad and not addressed the good:
- the calculation so far has been with two *teams* USA and China mainly. But, the economy is global. For the factory worker who needs nails from China that just got tariffed. Many other countries also are capable of producing nails. Assuming the factory is as price conscious as possible, the Chinese original option would be the cheapest; however, the cost to the factory would not be the increased price with the tariff, or necessarily any adjust rate the Chinese company made, or what it would cost to produce them in the USA. It could be the difference in price between the Chinese supplier and whoever their competitor is globally, which hypothetically could be very minimal. Also, the switch completely away from the Chinese product to a competitor would have the effect Trump would hope for in damaging China.
- similar to the above. Scott brings up Apple vs Samsung. Says tariffs in China would have the effect of just making Apple products more expensive. Well yeah, only if Apple chose to stay in China. Now Apple is enormous and I imagine it would be very hard for them to move. However, for more minor companies in the same position, they could move China to Vietnam, still be competitive (as his example of Samsung demonstrates), hurt China and minimally impact end consumer.
- last way I have thought of a benefit during these 25mins. On the tiki torch example somewhat hints at. If there is a product that is unnecessary or a superfluous item to the consumer and it gets tariffed, the consumer just may not purchase it at all. Again, hurting China. And, although I know in an economic (the discipline) sense this would also be hurting the consumer as they do not have a product they previously would have purchased, it isn’t hurting them in their pocket book as.
Again, I am against tariffs. As all of these example still demonstrate, there are additional costs to the end consumer. However, it is arguable on these points and in specific instances if the potential benefit from the tariff outweighs the cost. Even if I am completely wrong on these points too, it is worth mentioning them just to refute them. Scott is the tariff expert, I do not want to sit here 10 years out of my Economics major and be able to point out things that he isn’t addressing. Again, even if I’m wrong, then being unaddressed weakens his argument.
Phenomenal pod as always gents. Amazing info on the first half and great analysis on the back. I live in Greater Boston and I really appreciated the Seth Moulton discussion. Although I wanted to add some local context. He is being praised from some national outlets and pundits certainly for saying what he said, however he is not “winning” in the aftermath as Michael mentioned. At least not if he wants to win re-election locally.
Not only is there not one person with a D next to their name defending him locally, Salem Public Schools, Salem Democrats & the Salem City Council denounced his comments. On top of that, Massachusetts Democrats are already LINING UP A CHALLENGER TO RUN AGAINST HIM.
All for saying he wants to have a conversation about biological boys who transition playing girls sports. His point was proven that you are not allowed to have nuanced conversations in most Democratic Party circles and I commend him for it, but local democrats are digging into their insanity with a steel shovel. They’ve already decided they’re done with him and one of the last normie Dems in the state is probably going to get voted out by his Halloween Celebrating, Homeless Encampment Advocating, nutbag liberal district.
This episode needs a video feed in which Batya is on mute and is forced to listen.
Her utopian fantasy of Trump's incoming second term is just as delusional as the people who think that it is going to be the end of America.
I have a feeling that in four years we’re all going to be disappointed
Life of a libertarian!
That’s been a safe bet since I was born.
Yeah. She has some interesting insights as to how working class people are thinking (don't want handouts, but also want their lives protected from change), but her understanding of economics is terrible. I would have expected more from someone who studied at the University of Chicago.
UChicago is a commie hellhole at this point, sorry to disappoint
Disappointing, didn’t know that. In my mind it was one of the few sane universities left.
She would have to be strapped into a chair like Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange
If this site allowed images, my original post would have had a screenshot of this scene from the film with the caption: "Never had I viddied so much neoliberalism!"
The best way to experience her in on mute.
That would be violation of the Geneva convention.
This made me burst out laughing.
Leftists like her and Ultra Nationalists that she’s embraced unfortunately have chosen the opposite… they’d rather plug their ears and yell loudly “La La La La La” than listen. I’m convinced dear leader could cause a depression and they’ll pretend nothing is wrong sooner than acknowledging the failure.
Omg hahahahha
That would be awesome
Well, I listened to five hours of the Fifth Column podcast today.
I'm just passing hour 3 and if I manage this entire episode I'll match you!
Let's get this bread
Sadly I tapped out at about 3h30m but I'm back on the horse today!
Valiant effort!
I am a fan of nerdy discussions with DC types about niche policy issues. Please continue your efforts in this direction. Also more music discussion.
Here to say I would have ABSOLUTELY listened to two hours of tariff talk.
Great tariffs primer. Scott says “globalists” like he’s been hanging out with Jonah Goldberg too long. iykyk
The Hyatt loyalty program has a level called “Globalist,” and I always read it in Jonah’s voice.
😂😂😂
Great episode, gentlemen! While I largely agree with Scott, I also understand the frustration felt by those who might not be satisfied with an economic explainer. The “debate” has never actually been about tariffs, but around a perceived injustice.
I wonder how Scott would respond to the following questions:
1. Developed economies tend to shift towards a service-based model, but is this sustainable in the long run? While manufacturing will always be necessary, who will take on this role as economies continue to evolve? If the current economic imbalance benefits all parties, where will things settle when that imbalance no longer exists?
2. The US Navy is the sole force that enables global trade on the scale we see today and has eradicated piracy. This is solely funded by US taxpayers, regardless of whether they personally benefit from the global economy. How does this fact come into play when discussing the benefits of the global economy for the average American or the USA as a whole?
3. How do cultural differences influence the dynamics of labor practices? Large players like China excel at blurring the lines between forced and “regular” labor. Will the current model and thinking continue to be effective in an environment without forced labor or a permanent “underclass” that can be relied upon for cheap manufacturing? Similarly, how does the damage caused to American companies and workers by large-scale intellectual property theft factor into the calculations of net benefit to American citizens?
To the average working class person, the current manufacturing environment seems like a “current moment in time” thing, and it’s challenging for them to comprehend its long-term sustainability. Economics of the future are notoriously unpredictable, but I’m curious to see how someone like Scott would address these concerns, as they might alleviate some of the anxiety and sense of injustice felt by those who support the Trump tariffs (I’m not one of them!).
Thank you for taking the time to write what I would have, in detail. Saved me 20 minutes.
Come on. We all know tariffs are just a "bargaining chip!" He won't do them even though he has and they'll work so well even though they haven't!
Man's a genius. His masterful tariff plan will undoubtedly accomplish... things and create... Stuff.
It goes like this.
Step 1- tariffs
Step 2-?????
Step 3- profit!
(In best Trump voice...) "Beautiful Tariffs! Beautiful, beautiful tariffs. So, so many tariffs."
Suppose that I don't like tariffs. Suppose that I don't like that in some pursuits Chinese companies can outcompete American companies on price simply by using slave labor. What is a free marketer like me supposed to do with these facts? I don't like being part of a "demand" for slave labor.
You could open up free trade agreements with other nations! China is not the only country in the world desperate for work, and if you signal to the market a new place where it will be cheap to get your goods to a major market like the U.S. then you would give China a real competitor. That would actually be more effective at getting China to the negotiating table then a tariff.
Which was the purpose of the transpacific partnership agreement (tpp) which trump refused to ratify
Who had “mentions Jones Act” in first 15 minutes on their bingo card?
Everyone?
Hahaha it was the free square. Great episode! I hope yall do an energy issue sometime around the time Trump pulls out of Climate Accords
Many more hours of Scott please
Please never again
SCOTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can we all agree that, however else you might feel about Matt Gaetz, the guy has the absolute most punchable face in the history of American politics?
Your hand would get sucked into it from all the fillers. It would be like punching playdoh
All of our comments are being cut off, but I’ll assume you’d have made me laugh. Suspense is killing me.
I love Moynihan's off-hand remark about being worried about the Attorney General pick. That was, uhhh, prescient....
I am only 25mins in so if this is addressed later please ignore (I’ll get there and respond to myself if so). I think tariffs are economically a bad idea; however, being 25mins in Scott has only addressed why they are a bad idea. Nothing he said is wrong, but I think if he was to make a strong robust argument he would address the other side and potential benefits. Some he’s hinted at but steered only into the bad and not addressed the good:
- the calculation so far has been with two *teams* USA and China mainly. But, the economy is global. For the factory worker who needs nails from China that just got tariffed. Many other countries also are capable of producing nails. Assuming the factory is as price conscious as possible, the Chinese original option would be the cheapest; however, the cost to the factory would not be the increased price with the tariff, or necessarily any adjust rate the Chinese company made, or what it would cost to produce them in the USA. It could be the difference in price between the Chinese supplier and whoever their competitor is globally, which hypothetically could be very minimal. Also, the switch completely away from the Chinese product to a competitor would have the effect Trump would hope for in damaging China.
- similar to the above. Scott brings up Apple vs Samsung. Says tariffs in China would have the effect of just making Apple products more expensive. Well yeah, only if Apple chose to stay in China. Now Apple is enormous and I imagine it would be very hard for them to move. However, for more minor companies in the same position, they could move China to Vietnam, still be competitive (as his example of Samsung demonstrates), hurt China and minimally impact end consumer.
- last way I have thought of a benefit during these 25mins. On the tiki torch example somewhat hints at. If there is a product that is unnecessary or a superfluous item to the consumer and it gets tariffed, the consumer just may not purchase it at all. Again, hurting China. And, although I know in an economic (the discipline) sense this would also be hurting the consumer as they do not have a product they previously would have purchased, it isn’t hurting them in their pocket book as.
Again, I am against tariffs. As all of these example still demonstrate, there are additional costs to the end consumer. However, it is arguable on these points and in specific instances if the potential benefit from the tariff outweighs the cost. Even if I am completely wrong on these points too, it is worth mentioning them just to refute them. Scott is the tariff expert, I do not want to sit here 10 years out of my Economics major and be able to point out things that he isn’t addressing. Again, even if I’m wrong, then being unaddressed weakens his argument.
100%. He speaks as though our economy can be reduced to a model, in a geopolitical vacuum.
Phenomenal pod as always gents. Amazing info on the first half and great analysis on the back. I live in Greater Boston and I really appreciated the Seth Moulton discussion. Although I wanted to add some local context. He is being praised from some national outlets and pundits certainly for saying what he said, however he is not “winning” in the aftermath as Michael mentioned. At least not if he wants to win re-election locally.
Not only is there not one person with a D next to their name defending him locally, Salem Public Schools, Salem Democrats & the Salem City Council denounced his comments. On top of that, Massachusetts Democrats are already LINING UP A CHALLENGER TO RUN AGAINST HIM.
All for saying he wants to have a conversation about biological boys who transition playing girls sports. His point was proven that you are not allowed to have nuanced conversations in most Democratic Party circles and I commend him for it, but local democrats are digging into their insanity with a steel shovel. They’ve already decided they’re done with him and one of the last normie Dems in the state is probably going to get voted out by his Halloween Celebrating, Homeless Encampment Advocating, nutbag liberal district.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/11/13/metro/seth-moulton-democrats-transgender-backlash-election-challenge-massachusetts/
Get in loser, we’re going to lose more national elections.
To answer Kmele’s question: Yes, I would have listened to another hour. Great conversation.