First of all, one has to pay detailed attention to what fascists are SAYing, because they always project - and so what they are saying helps you understand what they are DOing.
"Fair trade"? "LIberation day"? Ok - yeah right. Pull the other leg now. When have faascists, including the American oligarchy, ever cared about liberating anyone. Their entire agenda is to ENSLAVE.
The fascist playbook is to coopt and reverse language.
Their intention is not to liberate Americans but rather to imprison them.
This is a reindustrialization (for war preparation purposes, not social uplifting) to be paid for TWICE by American masses.
One, by taxes aka "tarrifs" which are actually not levyed on foreign countries but on....Americans who buy anything from abroad.
And two by battering down the salaries of Americans who will work on domestic production of goods and services. The "DOGE" is casting out hundres of thousands of workers from jobs, so they can be preyed on....at a lower salaries and with less benefits...by American capitalists. And the goverment is beating down workers rights to organize and negotiate decent salaries and benefits.
So American workers are being ENSLAVED not "liberated". And to fuel a war preparation effort. At ALL costs. That's why they are taking actions that seem counterproductive....if you assume they case about their own people. They dont.
And when I say its a "fascist" program, I included the Dems too. Biden actually begain this with tarrifs and with the "Inflation reduction act" which was a war reindustrialization program not a "green" program. Biden too battered down workers rights.
Note that the EU claims to be putting up tarrifs as "retaliation". Well no they are lying. We can see that it is a lie because at the SAME time EU is imposing at the same time tarrifs on China. For the same reason: reshoring production to prep for an INTENDED war, at all costs, including costs savaging own people and their living standards.
Moreover the SAME cabal of US and EU previously were cackling to China to cut its industrial production capacity, claiming China had "overcapacity".
Diesen’s piece focuses on the economic and geopolitical dynamics of tariffs—how they’re being used to protect U.S. industries, counter China’s rise, and reshape global supply chains. He critiques the aggressive use of tariffs, arguing they disrupt markets, inflate costs, and fail without robust industrial policies to back them up. Your observation about energy and resource depletion adds a critical layer he doesn’t address. Tariffs and industrial repatriation don’t just involve economic strategy; they’re deeply tied to the physical realities of production—energy availability, raw material access, and environmental limits.
For example, bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. requires massive energy inputs. China’s dominance in manufacturing isn’t just about cheap labor or mature industries; it’s also about their control over rare earth elements, efficient (albeit coal-heavy) energy systems, and willingness to exploit resources at scale. The U.S., meanwhile, faces higher energy costs, aging infrastructure, and stricter environmental regulations. Repatriating supply chains could spike demand for oil, gas, or renewables at a time when global reserves are either depleting or transitioning unevenly. Diesen mentions the decades-long timeline for this shift but doesn’t connect it to the resource crunch that could slow it down or make it unsustainable.
Natural resource depletion ties in too. Advanced manufacturing—think semiconductors or electric vehicles—relies on finite materials like lithium, cobalt, and copper. China’s grip on these supply chains isn’t just economic; it’s geological and logistical. Tariffs might protect U.S. industries in theory, but if the raw inputs aren’t secured domestically or through stable allies, the strategy falters. Plus, ramping up domestic extraction or recycling could clash with the financialization and rent-seeking Diesen critiques—oligarchs and investors might prefer short-term profits over long-term resource planning.
This point highlights a blind spot: economic nationalism via tariffs assumes the U.S. can rewind the clock to a self-sufficient industrial era, but the energy and resource landscape has changed since the 19th-century "American System." Without addressing these realities—say, through massive investments in green tech, resource innovation, or energy independence—the tariff push could hit a wall. Inflation from tariffs is one thing; inflation from resource scarcity or energy bottlenecks could be worse.
Inequality must be addressed first and foremost by providing for basic human needs instead of feeding a massively overgrown and wasteful military machine. The only way to start doing this is to tax the rich and remove private finance from elections and government. In the US we need a constitutional convention to reform the system that has been co-opted and distorted by moneyed interests to the detriment of the majority of citizens and to the denigration of US reputation throughout the world. Yes I know, "dream on." Instead, there will be economic and social collapse because some people that have seized power evidently are incapable of evolving.
The notion that tariffs will bring back manufacturing and good jobs is mistaken because we in the US no longer have a sufficiently skilled-educated-capable workforce. There are so many human resource support structures that have eroded over the last ~ 50 years, along with the infrastructure needed to support a reinvigorated industrial sector, all of which need to be restored with public investment that has been lacking or denied because profit generation for the few through military expenditure and financialization have been prioritized. Our society is so messed-up now, it's hard to imagine any economic policy tweaks could turn things around.
Ideally, no country should ever depend on foreign trade. If they do, that means they have internal deficiencies and have not found suitable substitutes. Tariff is a sovereign right, at least not something for its neighbor to criticize. China knew that they had to switch to focus on domestic consumption but did not walk far in that direction. I believe that was mostly for capital flight reasons. China needs to push money into the ordinary citizens but they are afraid to do so because Chinese Communists knew that when people have enough money, they will become more picky about government officials and want to share political powers. Maybe the US tariff is the last straw to break this taboo. Helicopter money is bad but does not always cause disasters. It all depends on how you do it.
It’s NOT possible for country on earth to be self sufficient in everything. Because we would need several extra planets to do that.
Anyone who says stuff like this is not educated in the basic facts of how we exist on this earth. And ignorance is no foundation for any useful thoughts.
So mutual trade and good relations - what you and the war propaganda crew call “dependency” - is the only way forward on this planet.
I don't think this this the reason. After all, we don't trade with aliens so humanity has to be self sufficient.
A country cannot live in autarky because no country get all the ressources on its territory to sustain our modern way of life. So trying to live in autarky will weaken the economy and lower the standard of living, leading to internal political troubles (as people compare their lot to foreign standards) and weak military capabilities. So sooner or later the state collapse.
But of course, it's only true up to a point.
Countries that trade ressources they don't have for stuff they produce get stronger economies for a while. But soon they end up depending on the trade. (While, as a side effect, the few people who promote and organize it skim even larger profits. These are the ones you will see making the more noise at the present situation by the way).
So maintaining the trade capability is getting more and more difficult and more and more costly, draining the state treasury (think Yemen for exemple. Or trade deficits. Or tax heavens...).
And, if for some reason, trade is not possible anymore, these country collapse. Even further down that the level autarky would have allowed.
Very true. To paraphrase your ideas a bit, I think while autarky is ideal, it is not always achievable. The same as an absolute saint cannot be achieved by ordinary folks holding ordinary jobs and living ordinary lives. Yet, most competent national leaders will try to improve national capabilities along that line while considering the cost and payback. Just like we individuals will try to identify a few traits for more personal development. An agricultural nation without coal and irons to depend on trade? That will not happen. Such countries will be swallowed quickly. But for a country that can build almost everything but is not good at building civilian cars and refrigerators? Yeah that is probably OK, just import them. No satellite technlogy? One can rent them. Most importantly, hide your national defense below the ground so the satellites you don't have will face more difficulties in looking down at your country. No ability to build small arms? It is OK as long as all your neighbors cannot do it either. Suppose one side has to import AK-47s while the opposite side can stamp out AK-47s in assembly lines. Then the result of a military conflict can be one-sided.
Well, that is why I say ideally. Realistically, all countries have to shoot for autarky as much as they can. To the minimal, food self-sufficiency. Once there are external dependencies, there is the probability of invasion, occupation, and looting. It takes a long time for a people to learn to coexist peacefully with their neighbors. And then older people die and the lessons would not be passed down to the next generation. What you considered to be "should", is indeed what people "should" do but quite often they don't.
Nope, you presented a picture of suspicion and paranoia as “normal”. It’s not.
Trade is normal behaviour in human history. Ever since humans settled and cultivated, trade has been NORMAL. Humans travel far and wide to trade among each other. No one makes everyone on this planet. Trade is normal not “dependency”.
What you are attempting to do is pass off Warhawk mentality as normal. It’s not.
We don’t have 8 planets to support your visions of paranoia.
So we are all going to have to do what’s normal in human history. Trade and cooperate. There is no alternative. War is not a useful or attractive choice.
Trade between ordinary people is completely normal, and a sign of specialization in the community. Trade between countries is a sign of weakness. In the old days, countries can be very small: people planted what they ate and fought with clubs made from simple tools. When iron was found and used, the countries that could not acquire iron in a suitable amount would be invaded, defeated, and swallowed. Each stable country by then must have iron and coal. Once metallurgy was improved, people needed specialty metals to make steel. Countries owning only raw iron clubs were invaded and swallowed by countries with high-strength carbon steel. War results can be different from technology superiority due to different reasons. So is the economy. You have sugar beet but I have sugar cane, no issue, we just get used to different kinds of sweetness. You have cod and I have tilapia, still no issue. As technology becomes more complicated, different kinds of natural resources are needed, and nations tend to grow bigger. Eventually, human civilization improves and try to avoid wars, so there are trades between nations. When some of the nations don't want to play by the rules, they will invade other countries. The kind of "normal in human history" will naturally occur when the entire earth is one country. Then once again, trades will not go across the "border".
In the past couple of century most conflict can be traced to a handful of Eurocolonial countries that are too greedy and for whom weapons are a way of life.
Human civilization will need to improve upon these high tech savages, in order to progress.
“We are all at the mercy of the European vision of the world - and that vision is obsolete”
The issue is not necessarily "European". However, humankind still has a long way to go. When a school bully gets beaten up badly, he may learn to behave better for the rest of his life. But guess what? There is always another bully. We need a mechanism to nip off that bully mentality early, but I don't have any workable ideas. By the way, "Europeans" behaved this way MAY be because they all remain relatively small (compared to BRICS and the USA) and exhausted their resources earlier. The Europeans can choose to cooperate or unify, but no new natural resources will come out because of this cooperation or unification.
Unless the whole economic system is doomed anyway. Just sleepwalking on deficit and nearly negative interest rates. A Ponzi chain entirely dependent on cheap imports made affordable by fake government money and credit card debt.
And so it might not be a way a save it but to try to anticipate the fall and make it less painful...
So what you are saying is that the US is trying to return things to the way they were? Back to the 'golden age' of US capitalism, 1945-1975, a scant 30 years. Or, is it simply a prelude to world war, or rather war on China, which amounts to the same thing? It's Barbara Streisand, all over again isn't it.
Hoping that now I (an American flower farmer) can compete with the Eurozone cut flower imports! I only wish the import tariffs were put on Ecuador and Columbia, as they supply even more flowers to the US than the EU. Decades ago, the US had a strong and vibrant cut flower sector dominated by medium and small sized businesses. There are at least tens of thousands of small farms (growing cut flowers but also vegetables, or hops, grapes, fruits, etc) that are ready to finally be competitive and ramp up production...
'Liberation Day' will go down as an all-time classic in terms of politicians using language ironically to manipulate their own voters.
Trump and the political right in general love to bang on about personal freedoms to do this that and the other. Well those personal freedoms surely include the 'right' to buy what they want, when they want, from whom they want, whether that be choosing to buy goods/services from a US manufacturer, choosing to buy those 'same' goods/services from Vietnam instead, or choosing to buy them from an Antartic island only populated by krill in the surrounding waters.
'Liberation Day' has ironically done the exact opposite of liberating US consumers. It is constricting their freedom to choose. It is constricting their 'personal liberties'.
It's surprising to me that I have not seen mention of this as Trump is basically acting against his own voter base, the libertarians, which should be politically significant. 'Liberation Day' then is a buzzphrase designed to distract his voters from the realisation he is screwing them.
–––
While on the subject of manipulation, the presentation of something as its opposite, Trump's tariffs may actually be an act of defence dressed up as him going on the attack against the rest of the world for being unfair so unfair tremendously unfair [incoherent something] unfair...
What is being presented as the act of a strong man may be covering up fear of US weakness.
Ian Proud on his substack stated that no matter how much Trump wants to simultaneously have the dollar as reserve currency (which inherently causes a strong dollar) AND a more favourable balance of payments (higher exports, lower imports, necessitating a weak dollar), that would be impossible as you cannot have a strong dollar and weak dollar at the same time.
The US budget deficit is funded by 'investment' from overseas countries buying US bonds. The excess dollar supply circulating within the US is used by consumers to buy goods/services from overseas, thus dollars remain more or less in balance, currently, it's said.
Trump's tariffs are presented as an act of strength, forcibly lowering the payments for imports. A budget deficit can be paid for by the US exporting goods/services overseas, or exporting 'dollars' (in practice, bonds) overseas (to be used as reserves by central banks).
If the balance of payments moves towards what Trump calls 'fair trade', net zero imports/exports, there is no need to export dollars/bonds for central bank reserve currency. Both sides of the equation have moved to net zero.
The US is very exposed to overseas countries reducing their purchase of dollars to hold as central bank reserve currency. If everyone suddenly did it – and there is a good reason why they won't – the US would find itself with a trillion dollar budget deficit and no way to fund it through bond sales to overseas countries. Problem. Trillion dollar problem. Just this year's.
So perhaps what Trump is doing here is attempting to re-onshore companies not to make America great again, not as a show of strength, but because his administration are very spooked by the rise of BRICS and the prospect of a rapid de-dollarisation by e.g. China. In other words, it is fear of a structural weakness, a defensive move, not a strong man move?
–––
While what Ian said is true in a world dominated by logic, that the US cannot simultaneously have two opposite phenomena in its favour at the same time, that assertion may not stand up if the US starts to use its military power to bear down on one or other side of the coin. If it decides to act coercively, which may well mean to act illegally, it may be able to bring pressure to bear on both sides of the equation. Effectively force the balance of payments in US favour by tariffs is one side. Normally that would mean less demand for the dollar as reserve currency so less demand for US bonds, or rather less demand for US bonds at the now lower price of those bonds (less demand = lower price). However, if the US points a gun at your head and says "Well hey there Boy, you are gonna buy our bonds whether you like it or not, and never mind what the floating rate of the dollar is, you're going to pay the 'or else' rate, Boy, or else" then if you haven't got a bigger gun than the US you'll do as you're told.
It feels to me this is where we are heading. The US, even more than was already the case during my entire lifetime, is just going to do what it wants, to whoever it wants, almost no matter how illegal, and what's anyone gonna do about it? Basically a country operating as an OCG (Organised Crime Gang), which to an extent has always been the case but we may be about to see it on such a scale that even the yankeephiles in 'allied' countries are terrified.
Of course, this implementation has nothing to do with a return to "fair trade" as the tariffs are not aimed at protecting specific emerging industries or even specific industries that have been determined to be of critical national interest and need rebuilding. Instead, rather than well-aimed sniper shots these are wild shotgun blasts, spinning and blindfolded.
There seem three possible conclusions. One, the administration doesn't know which industries need and should receive support. Two, every industry actually does need support but the administration doesn't know how to do that so everybody gets hit using a single formula. Three, these tariffs are not really about trade per se but are intended to set the stage for something else (trade negotiations, foreign policy demands, "funding" domestic policies, etc).
I fear it's the latter and that this will be used to justify highly unpopular expenditures benefiting a small minority as being "paid for". Economic turmoil and suffering by the majority will be ignored or dismissed as the price for MAGA. 🤷
What do you think of the idea it's all part of a big plan aiming at refocusing the US economy and power on North America ? And make it less dependent on a globalized trade and financial system that would collapse anytime now. Mostly because of a tremendous amount of debts that the coming scarcity of energy will never allow to repay.
It could be that Trump is actually simplifying a system whose complexity is not sustainable anymore.
Of course the whole plan might fail. It might be painful. It might even hasten the collapse.
But one thing we might never know is did Trump managed to mitigate the consequences for the US ? Or did it made it worse ? As those who profit the most of the actual system will always pretend that it would never have collapsed in the first place...
First of all, one has to pay detailed attention to what fascists are SAYing, because they always project - and so what they are saying helps you understand what they are DOing.
"Fair trade"? "LIberation day"? Ok - yeah right. Pull the other leg now. When have faascists, including the American oligarchy, ever cared about liberating anyone. Their entire agenda is to ENSLAVE.
The fascist playbook is to coopt and reverse language.
Their intention is not to liberate Americans but rather to imprison them.
This is a reindustrialization (for war preparation purposes, not social uplifting) to be paid for TWICE by American masses.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/07/resourcing-the-ramp-up-nato-and-the-challenge-of-a.html
One, by taxes aka "tarrifs" which are actually not levyed on foreign countries but on....Americans who buy anything from abroad.
And two by battering down the salaries of Americans who will work on domestic production of goods and services. The "DOGE" is casting out hundres of thousands of workers from jobs, so they can be preyed on....at a lower salaries and with less benefits...by American capitalists. And the goverment is beating down workers rights to organize and negotiate decent salaries and benefits.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/28/nx-s1-5343474/trump-collective-bargaining-unions-federal-employees
So American workers are being ENSLAVED not "liberated". And to fuel a war preparation effort. At ALL costs. That's why they are taking actions that seem counterproductive....if you assume they case about their own people. They dont.
And when I say its a "fascist" program, I included the Dems too. Biden actually begain this with tarrifs and with the "Inflation reduction act" which was a war reindustrialization program not a "green" program. Biden too battered down workers rights.
Note that the EU claims to be putting up tarrifs as "retaliation". Well no they are lying. We can see that it is a lie because at the SAME time EU is imposing at the same time tarrifs on China. For the same reason: reshoring production to prep for an INTENDED war, at all costs, including costs savaging own people and their living standards.
Moreover the SAME cabal of US and EU previously were cackling to China to cut its industrial production capacity, claiming China had "overcapacity".
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/eus-von-der-leyen-echoes-yellens-calls-for-tough-stance-on-chinese-overcapacity.html
The Europeans are also impoverishing their own people....for war
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/04/06/tenj-a06.html
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/04/05/hlck-a05.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-russia-defense-welfare-vs-warfare-political-parties-divided/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/france-s-war-economy-is-a-prelude-to-cutting-the-welfare-state/ar-AA1ACrMi
See the agenda. See the continuity. READ the actual priorities and outcomes. Ignore the misdirections.
Diesen’s piece focuses on the economic and geopolitical dynamics of tariffs—how they’re being used to protect U.S. industries, counter China’s rise, and reshape global supply chains. He critiques the aggressive use of tariffs, arguing they disrupt markets, inflate costs, and fail without robust industrial policies to back them up. Your observation about energy and resource depletion adds a critical layer he doesn’t address. Tariffs and industrial repatriation don’t just involve economic strategy; they’re deeply tied to the physical realities of production—energy availability, raw material access, and environmental limits.
For example, bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. requires massive energy inputs. China’s dominance in manufacturing isn’t just about cheap labor or mature industries; it’s also about their control over rare earth elements, efficient (albeit coal-heavy) energy systems, and willingness to exploit resources at scale. The U.S., meanwhile, faces higher energy costs, aging infrastructure, and stricter environmental regulations. Repatriating supply chains could spike demand for oil, gas, or renewables at a time when global reserves are either depleting or transitioning unevenly. Diesen mentions the decades-long timeline for this shift but doesn’t connect it to the resource crunch that could slow it down or make it unsustainable.
Natural resource depletion ties in too. Advanced manufacturing—think semiconductors or electric vehicles—relies on finite materials like lithium, cobalt, and copper. China’s grip on these supply chains isn’t just economic; it’s geological and logistical. Tariffs might protect U.S. industries in theory, but if the raw inputs aren’t secured domestically or through stable allies, the strategy falters. Plus, ramping up domestic extraction or recycling could clash with the financialization and rent-seeking Diesen critiques—oligarchs and investors might prefer short-term profits over long-term resource planning.
This point highlights a blind spot: economic nationalism via tariffs assumes the U.S. can rewind the clock to a self-sufficient industrial era, but the energy and resource landscape has changed since the 19th-century "American System." Without addressing these realities—say, through massive investments in green tech, resource innovation, or energy independence—the tariff push could hit a wall. Inflation from tariffs is one thing; inflation from resource scarcity or energy bottlenecks could be worse.
Inequality must be addressed first and foremost by providing for basic human needs instead of feeding a massively overgrown and wasteful military machine. The only way to start doing this is to tax the rich and remove private finance from elections and government. In the US we need a constitutional convention to reform the system that has been co-opted and distorted by moneyed interests to the detriment of the majority of citizens and to the denigration of US reputation throughout the world. Yes I know, "dream on." Instead, there will be economic and social collapse because some people that have seized power evidently are incapable of evolving.
The notion that tariffs will bring back manufacturing and good jobs is mistaken because we in the US no longer have a sufficiently skilled-educated-capable workforce. There are so many human resource support structures that have eroded over the last ~ 50 years, along with the infrastructure needed to support a reinvigorated industrial sector, all of which need to be restored with public investment that has been lacking or denied because profit generation for the few through military expenditure and financialization have been prioritized. Our society is so messed-up now, it's hard to imagine any economic policy tweaks could turn things around.
If it happens it would take at least 10 years to reindustrialize. Even then it would have to be protectionist industries
Ideally, no country should ever depend on foreign trade. If they do, that means they have internal deficiencies and have not found suitable substitutes. Tariff is a sovereign right, at least not something for its neighbor to criticize. China knew that they had to switch to focus on domestic consumption but did not walk far in that direction. I believe that was mostly for capital flight reasons. China needs to push money into the ordinary citizens but they are afraid to do so because Chinese Communists knew that when people have enough money, they will become more picky about government officials and want to share political powers. Maybe the US tariff is the last straw to break this taboo. Helicopter money is bad but does not always cause disasters. It all depends on how you do it.
Wrong.
It’s NOT possible for country on earth to be self sufficient in everything. Because we would need several extra planets to do that.
Anyone who says stuff like this is not educated in the basic facts of how we exist on this earth. And ignorance is no foundation for any useful thoughts.
So mutual trade and good relations - what you and the war propaganda crew call “dependency” - is the only way forward on this planet.
I don't think this this the reason. After all, we don't trade with aliens so humanity has to be self sufficient.
A country cannot live in autarky because no country get all the ressources on its territory to sustain our modern way of life. So trying to live in autarky will weaken the economy and lower the standard of living, leading to internal political troubles (as people compare their lot to foreign standards) and weak military capabilities. So sooner or later the state collapse.
But of course, it's only true up to a point.
Countries that trade ressources they don't have for stuff they produce get stronger economies for a while. But soon they end up depending on the trade. (While, as a side effect, the few people who promote and organize it skim even larger profits. These are the ones you will see making the more noise at the present situation by the way).
So maintaining the trade capability is getting more and more difficult and more and more costly, draining the state treasury (think Yemen for exemple. Or trade deficits. Or tax heavens...).
And, if for some reason, trade is not possible anymore, these country collapse. Even further down that the level autarky would have allowed.
It's all about balance...
Very true. To paraphrase your ideas a bit, I think while autarky is ideal, it is not always achievable. The same as an absolute saint cannot be achieved by ordinary folks holding ordinary jobs and living ordinary lives. Yet, most competent national leaders will try to improve national capabilities along that line while considering the cost and payback. Just like we individuals will try to identify a few traits for more personal development. An agricultural nation without coal and irons to depend on trade? That will not happen. Such countries will be swallowed quickly. But for a country that can build almost everything but is not good at building civilian cars and refrigerators? Yeah that is probably OK, just import them. No satellite technlogy? One can rent them. Most importantly, hide your national defense below the ground so the satellites you don't have will face more difficulties in looking down at your country. No ability to build small arms? It is OK as long as all your neighbors cannot do it either. Suppose one side has to import AK-47s while the opposite side can stamp out AK-47s in assembly lines. Then the result of a military conflict can be one-sided.
Well, that is why I say ideally. Realistically, all countries have to shoot for autarky as much as they can. To the minimal, food self-sufficiency. Once there are external dependencies, there is the probability of invasion, occupation, and looting. It takes a long time for a people to learn to coexist peacefully with their neighbors. And then older people die and the lessons would not be passed down to the next generation. What you considered to be "should", is indeed what people "should" do but quite often they don't.
Nope, you presented a picture of suspicion and paranoia as “normal”. It’s not.
Trade is normal behaviour in human history. Ever since humans settled and cultivated, trade has been NORMAL. Humans travel far and wide to trade among each other. No one makes everyone on this planet. Trade is normal not “dependency”.
What you are attempting to do is pass off Warhawk mentality as normal. It’s not.
We don’t have 8 planets to support your visions of paranoia.
So we are all going to have to do what’s normal in human history. Trade and cooperate. There is no alternative. War is not a useful or attractive choice.
Trade between ordinary people is completely normal, and a sign of specialization in the community. Trade between countries is a sign of weakness. In the old days, countries can be very small: people planted what they ate and fought with clubs made from simple tools. When iron was found and used, the countries that could not acquire iron in a suitable amount would be invaded, defeated, and swallowed. Each stable country by then must have iron and coal. Once metallurgy was improved, people needed specialty metals to make steel. Countries owning only raw iron clubs were invaded and swallowed by countries with high-strength carbon steel. War results can be different from technology superiority due to different reasons. So is the economy. You have sugar beet but I have sugar cane, no issue, we just get used to different kinds of sweetness. You have cod and I have tilapia, still no issue. As technology becomes more complicated, different kinds of natural resources are needed, and nations tend to grow bigger. Eventually, human civilization improves and try to avoid wars, so there are trades between nations. When some of the nations don't want to play by the rules, they will invade other countries. The kind of "normal in human history" will naturally occur when the entire earth is one country. Then once again, trades will not go across the "border".
In the past couple of century most conflict can be traced to a handful of Eurocolonial countries that are too greedy and for whom weapons are a way of life.
Human civilization will need to improve upon these high tech savages, in order to progress.
“We are all at the mercy of the European vision of the world - and that vision is obsolete”
James Baldwin's National Press Club Speech (1986)
The issue is not necessarily "European". However, humankind still has a long way to go. When a school bully gets beaten up badly, he may learn to behave better for the rest of his life. But guess what? There is always another bully. We need a mechanism to nip off that bully mentality early, but I don't have any workable ideas. By the way, "Europeans" behaved this way MAY be because they all remain relatively small (compared to BRICS and the USA) and exhausted their resources earlier. The Europeans can choose to cooperate or unify, but no new natural resources will come out because of this cooperation or unification.
Yes. The economy will take a hit in the short term, but longer-term effects depend on investment & policy decisions.
1️⃣ Short-term (1-2 years) → Higher inflation, weaker consumer spending & supply chain disruptions.
Tariffs drive up costs → inflation spike
Fed keeps rates high → borrowing remains expensive
Business costs rise → some layoffs, reduced hiring, static wages
Trade partners hurt → exports/GDP decline but slightly less trade deficit
DOGE and corporate tax means less tax take → less infrastructure maintenance.
2️⃣ Medium-term (3-5 years) → Better trade balance but still economic drag
Some industries may reshore production, but it takes time
Businesses adapt, but most pass costs to consumers
Fiscal deficits worsen due to tax cuts & weaker growth → possible stagflation
3️⃣ Long-term (5+ years) → Depends on whether the U.S. truly reindustrializes
If tariffs spur real investment in U.S. manufacturing → long-term gain
If businesses just move production to Vietnam, Mexico, or India → no real improvement
Yes...
Unless the whole economic system is doomed anyway. Just sleepwalking on deficit and nearly negative interest rates. A Ponzi chain entirely dependent on cheap imports made affordable by fake government money and credit card debt.
And so it might not be a way a save it but to try to anticipate the fall and make it less painful...
So what you are saying is that the US is trying to return things to the way they were? Back to the 'golden age' of US capitalism, 1945-1975, a scant 30 years. Or, is it simply a prelude to world war, or rather war on China, which amounts to the same thing? It's Barbara Streisand, all over again isn't it.
Hoping that now I (an American flower farmer) can compete with the Eurozone cut flower imports! I only wish the import tariffs were put on Ecuador and Columbia, as they supply even more flowers to the US than the EU. Decades ago, the US had a strong and vibrant cut flower sector dominated by medium and small sized businesses. There are at least tens of thousands of small farms (growing cut flowers but also vegetables, or hops, grapes, fruits, etc) that are ready to finally be competitive and ramp up production...
'Liberation Day' will go down as an all-time classic in terms of politicians using language ironically to manipulate their own voters.
Trump and the political right in general love to bang on about personal freedoms to do this that and the other. Well those personal freedoms surely include the 'right' to buy what they want, when they want, from whom they want, whether that be choosing to buy goods/services from a US manufacturer, choosing to buy those 'same' goods/services from Vietnam instead, or choosing to buy them from an Antartic island only populated by krill in the surrounding waters.
'Liberation Day' has ironically done the exact opposite of liberating US consumers. It is constricting their freedom to choose. It is constricting their 'personal liberties'.
It's surprising to me that I have not seen mention of this as Trump is basically acting against his own voter base, the libertarians, which should be politically significant. 'Liberation Day' then is a buzzphrase designed to distract his voters from the realisation he is screwing them.
–––
While on the subject of manipulation, the presentation of something as its opposite, Trump's tariffs may actually be an act of defence dressed up as him going on the attack against the rest of the world for being unfair so unfair tremendously unfair [incoherent something] unfair...
What is being presented as the act of a strong man may be covering up fear of US weakness.
Ian Proud on his substack stated that no matter how much Trump wants to simultaneously have the dollar as reserve currency (which inherently causes a strong dollar) AND a more favourable balance of payments (higher exports, lower imports, necessitating a weak dollar), that would be impossible as you cannot have a strong dollar and weak dollar at the same time.
The US budget deficit is funded by 'investment' from overseas countries buying US bonds. The excess dollar supply circulating within the US is used by consumers to buy goods/services from overseas, thus dollars remain more or less in balance, currently, it's said.
Trump's tariffs are presented as an act of strength, forcibly lowering the payments for imports. A budget deficit can be paid for by the US exporting goods/services overseas, or exporting 'dollars' (in practice, bonds) overseas (to be used as reserves by central banks).
If the balance of payments moves towards what Trump calls 'fair trade', net zero imports/exports, there is no need to export dollars/bonds for central bank reserve currency. Both sides of the equation have moved to net zero.
The US is very exposed to overseas countries reducing their purchase of dollars to hold as central bank reserve currency. If everyone suddenly did it – and there is a good reason why they won't – the US would find itself with a trillion dollar budget deficit and no way to fund it through bond sales to overseas countries. Problem. Trillion dollar problem. Just this year's.
So perhaps what Trump is doing here is attempting to re-onshore companies not to make America great again, not as a show of strength, but because his administration are very spooked by the rise of BRICS and the prospect of a rapid de-dollarisation by e.g. China. In other words, it is fear of a structural weakness, a defensive move, not a strong man move?
–––
While what Ian said is true in a world dominated by logic, that the US cannot simultaneously have two opposite phenomena in its favour at the same time, that assertion may not stand up if the US starts to use its military power to bear down on one or other side of the coin. If it decides to act coercively, which may well mean to act illegally, it may be able to bring pressure to bear on both sides of the equation. Effectively force the balance of payments in US favour by tariffs is one side. Normally that would mean less demand for the dollar as reserve currency so less demand for US bonds, or rather less demand for US bonds at the now lower price of those bonds (less demand = lower price). However, if the US points a gun at your head and says "Well hey there Boy, you are gonna buy our bonds whether you like it or not, and never mind what the floating rate of the dollar is, you're going to pay the 'or else' rate, Boy, or else" then if you haven't got a bigger gun than the US you'll do as you're told.
It feels to me this is where we are heading. The US, even more than was already the case during my entire lifetime, is just going to do what it wants, to whoever it wants, almost no matter how illegal, and what's anyone gonna do about it? Basically a country operating as an OCG (Organised Crime Gang), which to an extent has always been the case but we may be about to see it on such a scale that even the yankeephiles in 'allied' countries are terrified.
Of course, this implementation has nothing to do with a return to "fair trade" as the tariffs are not aimed at protecting specific emerging industries or even specific industries that have been determined to be of critical national interest and need rebuilding. Instead, rather than well-aimed sniper shots these are wild shotgun blasts, spinning and blindfolded.
There seem three possible conclusions. One, the administration doesn't know which industries need and should receive support. Two, every industry actually does need support but the administration doesn't know how to do that so everybody gets hit using a single formula. Three, these tariffs are not really about trade per se but are intended to set the stage for something else (trade negotiations, foreign policy demands, "funding" domestic policies, etc).
I fear it's the latter and that this will be used to justify highly unpopular expenditures benefiting a small minority as being "paid for". Economic turmoil and suffering by the majority will be ignored or dismissed as the price for MAGA. 🤷
What do you think of the idea it's all part of a big plan aiming at refocusing the US economy and power on North America ? And make it less dependent on a globalized trade and financial system that would collapse anytime now. Mostly because of a tremendous amount of debts that the coming scarcity of energy will never allow to repay.
It could be that Trump is actually simplifying a system whose complexity is not sustainable anymore.
Of course the whole plan might fail. It might be painful. It might even hasten the collapse.
But one thing we might never know is did Trump managed to mitigate the consequences for the US ? Or did it made it worse ? As those who profit the most of the actual system will always pretend that it would never have collapsed in the first place...