A better trade deal for whom?

My Sunday movie was The Pass, a 2016 film based on a 2014 play. The story focuses on Jason, who was played by Russell Tovey in both the play and the movie. Jason, a white guy, and Ade, a black guy, are roommates and good friends at a football (what Americans call soccer) camp. They’ve been attending since they were young. They’re now at a hotel in Bucharest and a big event is the next day. I think the event is one that gives some of the attendees a chance to go on to professional jobs. I get the impression Jason knows Ade is gay. The boys wear nothing but briefs. They joke around and do some roughhousing. And towards the end of the evening Jason leans in to kiss Ade. The rest of this review should probably be classified as a spoiler alert. I enjoyed the movie, but I don’t really recommend it. Five years later in London Jason is with a woman. The situation gets complicated, though the main reason why they’re together is Jason is desperate for evidence he’s not gay. He needs to protect his image of a strong footballer. His marriage (not to this woman) is falling apart. Five years after that Jason in living in a hotel in Manchester. Though he hasn’t seen Ade since the time in Bucharest he invites Ade for a visit and Ade comes. Ade wonders why Jason invited him. What does Jason want? It seems Jason hasn’t figured that out yet. Part of what he wants is for Ade to be jealous of his high status lifestyle. But Ade sees what Jason doesn’t have and he does. He has a boyfriend he loves. That long scene has a lot of drinking and a lot of downing medications of some sort (Jason says it is for his knee). Does Jason need to be drunk to kiss Ade again? The drinking and the meds are a big reason why the film doesn’t get a recommendation. Through that final scene I saw Jason is way messed up, a gay guy whose profession and social conditioning won’t let him admit it. I finished the book The Piano Shop on the Left Bank by Thad Carhart, published in 2000. This is a memoir of Carhart’s time living in Paris during the 1990s and it is centered around his love of pianos. When he walks his children to school he passes a shop that looks like it supplies tools to repair pianos. He encounters the French custom of privacy – parts of a French shopkeeper’s business is only open to those whom he trusts. Carhart must get a referral from an existing customer. Even then the owner is hesitant about letting him into the workroom. Once in Carhart sees a big workroom with maybe forty pianos, some in bad shape and others well restored. He meets Luc, the primary craftsman about to take over the business. The rest of the book is mostly about pianos and his love for them. Carhart had taken lessons through school but stopped when he went to college. Seeing Luc’s wares prompts him to want to take lessons again, though just for his own enjoyment. Even after buying a piano Carhart spends time socializing in the workroom (in his many visits he rarely describes Luc actually working on a piano). Carhart writes about the history of pianos, many of the great piano builders through history, some of the beautiful pianos that come through Luc’s shop, how to tune a piano, his efforts to find a suitable teacher and his enjoyment in the lessons, his work to find teachers for his children that aren’t geared to prepare children to be concert pianists, and what he learns while watching master classes by professional pianists. I very much enjoyed the book. EricAZ of the Daily Kos community wrote that according to the US Constitution Congress has the power to impose tariffs. So the nasty guy’s tariff proclamations are illegal. Because of that Charles Koch and Leonard Leo are filing suit against the tariffs. EricAZ does not mention Congress ceding tariffs to the presidency. Koch is the remaining Koch brother and the two are known for generous support of far right causes, the Koch network. Leo is the head of the Heritage Foundation, known for recommending far right Supreme Court candidates and making sure, once on the court, billionaires are able to take care of them. He’s the court puppet master. So a Koch brother and Leo teaming up to sue the far right nasty guy is big news. They found a plaintiff, a stationery shop that would be ruined by the tariffs. Suing the nasty guy could eventually put the case before the court Leo has stacked. The Court loves “major questions” and trashing the world economy doesn’t get any major. On Monday Oliver Willis of Kos wrote that many of the nasty guy’s billionaire backers publicly complained about the tariffs applied against most countries of the world. The billionaires speaking out included JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon (and Dimon is a respected economic voice). Even Elon Musk complained – he wants “a zero-tariff situation.” In response the nasty guy wrote, “Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid!” Yeah, calling your billionaire backers “stupid” isn’t going to endear yourself to them. Max Burns of Kos gave a history lesson:

Donald Trump’s chaotic ethos can be summed up in this sentence: Never admit you’re wrong, and only weak countries carry trade deficits. Those two pillars of Trump’s political thought have followed him from his days as a Manhattan real estate developer, through the dawn of the social media era, and right into the Oval Office. His latest global trade war is combining those two toxic ideas into what economic experts warn is an “astonishing act of self-harm” that has left business leaders “terrified” of the financial chaos to come.

Burns says “closing the trade deficit may be Trump’s only core value,” unlike abortion and immigration which are values he holds only to get himself elected.

Trump’s protectionist trade views are a product of the late 1970s, when the collapse of the post-World War II Bretton Woods economic system, a rising Japan, and a global oil shock made protectionism the hottest political fashion. In 1987, Trump would make his political debut with full-page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post slamming American trade policy and accusing foreign leaders of “laughing at” American leaders like Ronald Reagan.

Burns included the full page ad from 1987.

Trump implemented some of the harshest tariffs in American history because he believes a nonsensical set of myths about how our economy works. His economic policy is guided solely by what he misremembers about the 1970s, and nothing is swaying him. A great example of how Trump’s delusion is screwing the economy is his remark last week that American manufacturing will easily replace all U.S. imports in just two years. Actual manufacturers say that number is more like 10 to 12 years, and that assumes the economy remains stable. In the meantime, prices will spike and supply chains will be devastated, leading to potential product shortages and—you guessed it—even higher prices!

At lunchtime today Alex Samuels of Kos wrote:

Well, that backfired. After President Donald Trump slapped a punishing 104% tariff on Chinese goods, Beijing hit back, announcing on Wednesday that it would raise its own tariffs on U.S. goods from 34% to 84%. ... On top of an existing 20% tariff imposed earlier this year, Trump hiked tariffs on Chinese goods by another 34% during his ill-fated “Liberation Day.” China matched it, so Trump doubled down—literally—with a jaw-dropping 50% increase, bringing the total tax on Chinese imports to 104%. China countered with an 84% tariff on U.S. goods. ... Negotiating with a man who is obsessed with appearing like a winner is no easy feat.

China will hold firm. China’s response is in contrast to 70 other countries (I’ve heard) that have sent messages to the nasty guy with variations on “Let’s negotiate.” So China’s authoritarian leadership is refusing to appease the authoritarian nasty guy. A few hours later Emily Singer of Kos reported:

President Donald Trump partially caved on his absurd and destructive “Liberation Day” tariffs, announcing on Truth Social Wednesday that he’s lowering his universal tariff on nearly every country to 10% for the next 90 days, while raising his tariff on China to 125%. ... Trump’s announcement sent the stock market soaring, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing more than 2,500 points minutes after his announcement. But a 10% blanket tariff on nearly every country is still insane and inflationary.

As near as I can figure from various news reports, the nasty guy imposed a 10% tariff on nearly all countries (excepting Russia and perhaps Canada and Mexico already dealing with separately imposed tariffs), and did so last weekend. The extra “reciprocal” tariffs went into effect last night at midnight, and lasted about 15 hours before being pulled. A pause of 90 days only continues the chaos. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote that companies will pause big investment decisions during that time. In response Republicans in Congress are doing nothing to stop the nasty guy – worse, they’re trying to sneak a rule into the budget bill saying members cannot force votes on legislation to cancel tariffs. On Sunday, in a pundit roundup for Kos, Chitown Kev quoted Alaa Elassar, Shania Shelton, and Mina Allen of CNN:

Millions of people took part in protests against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk across all 50 states and globally on Saturday, organized by a pro-democracy movement in response to what they call a “hostile takeover” and attack on American rights and freedoms. [...] Nearly 600,000 people had signed up to attend the events, some of which took place in major cities like London and Paris, according to Indivisible, one of the organizations leading the movement in collaboration with a nationwide coalition that includes civil rights organizations, veterans, women’s rights groups, labor unions and LGBTQ+ advocates. Organizers say they have three demands: “an end to the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration; an end to slashing federal funds for Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs working people rely on; and an end to the attacks on immigrants, trans people, and other communities.”

From Tiffany Hsu of The New York Times:

President Trump’s team is selectively stripping away the public record, reconstructing his preferred vision of America in the negative space of purged history, archivists and historians said. As data and resources are deleted or altered, something foundational is also at risk: Americans’ ability to access and evaluate their past, and with it, their already shaky trust in facts. [...] The casualties are not just digital. The head of the National Archives, which has been described as “the custodian of America’s collective memory,” was fired by Mr. Trump in February. A key source of federal funding for public records depositories nationwide, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, was named in an executive order calling for its elimination “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” (its acting director said he planned to “restore focus on patriotism”). As the U.S. Agency for International Development was being gutted, a senior official told employees to shred or burn classified documents and personnel files. [...] The campaign of deletion does more than amplify the administration’s policy priorities — it buries evidence of the alternatives in a MAGA-branded memory hole. Several information experts said that Mr. Trump’s executive orders have authoritarian overtones, reminiscent of when Russia cloned Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and stripped it of unflattering material. Information experts and civil rights groups fear that a historical vacuum could jeopardize accountability and breed mistrust, especially in an already hostile political environment for researchers who are trying to fight disinformation.

Down in the comments kurious quoted bits from “Trump’s Tariffs Give Him a New Way to Dole Out Reward and Punishment” on Mother Jones. My summary of the few quotes: In traditional politics the tariffs don’t make sense. If the nasty guy is willing to hurt the economy he must be getting something he wants even more. That thing is power, personal power that doesn’t have to go through Congress.

With tariffs, Trump can exercise a kind of corruption that the country hasn’t experienced in some 150 years—a kind of control that is ultimately incompatible with both democracy and prosperity. ... An economy run on political favors is unpredictable, which causes slowdowns and inefficiency.

This transforms the government into a tool for reward and punishment. I read that and thought of the 70 countries saying they are willing to negotiate on tariffs. If the nasty guy is the sole arbiter of tariffs these countries can offer him personal favors, such as money for his pocket or business or a pledge of loyalty, in exchange for lower tariffs. Yup, corruption. I went to that Mother Jones article. It is by Pema Levy. Some additional thoughts from it: Traditional politics means a president’s political future is tied to the economy. If economists say something is bad, presidents aren’t going to do it. We’ve already seen the government being used as a tool for reward and punishment. Prosecutions against friends dropped. Law firms who did something against him targeted. Universities bullied into shutting down free speech. Countries that are rich have good governments where everyone plays by the same rules, not one run on favors and grievances. In that latter type of government investors can’t trust anyone. When the economy is manipulated to hold factions together capitalism and democracy cannot thrive.

His pitch to voters in each of his campaigns was that he would get a better trade deal with every country. But a better deal for whom? Businesses may discover they get exemptions if they eliminate DEI programs, donate to Trump’s political organizations, or buy his meme coins. Countries may find that they get exemptions if they are friendly to Trump’s business interests, as Argentina was in his first term. That would indeed be a better deal for Trump personally. But the best deal for Trump, he seems to believe, would be the power that comes from picking winners and losers. It would also erode the strength of the US economy and ultimately its democratic political system.