Thursday, March 12, 2020

Will coronavirus kill the New World Order?

 Image result for pictures of globalism
 Article by Patrick Buchanan in "WND":

Dr. Brian Monahan, attending physician of Congress, told a closed meeting of Senate staffers this week that 70 million to 150 million Americans – a third of the nation – could contract the coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci testified that the mortality rate for COVID-19 will likely run near 1%.

Translation: Between 750,000 and 1.1 million Americans may die of this disease before it runs its course. The latter figure is equal to all the U.S. dead in World War II and on both sides in the Civil War.
Chancellor Angela Merkel warns that 70% of Germany's population – 58 million people – could contract the coronavirus. If she is right, and Fauci's mortality rate holds for her country, that could mean more than half a million dead Germans.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis called Merkel's remark "unhelpful" and said it could cause panic. But Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch seemed to support Merkel, saying between 40% and 70% of the world's population could become infected.

Again, if Fauci's 1% mortality rate and Lipsitch's estimate prove on target, between 3 billion and 5 billion people on earth will be infected, and 30 million to 50 million will die, a death toll greater than that of the Spanish Flu of 1918.

There is, however, some contradictory news. 

China, with 81,000 cases, has noted a deceleration in new cases, and South Korea appears to be gradually containing the spread of the virus.
Yet, Italy, with its large elderly population, may be a harbinger of what is to come in the West.

As of Thursday, Italy had reported 12,000 cases and 827 deaths, a mortality rate of nearly 7%. This suggests that the unreported and undetected infections in shutdown Italy are far more numerous. 

In the U.S., the death toll at this writing is 39, a tiny fraction of the annual toll of tens of thousands who die of the flu.

But the problem is this: COVID-19 has not nearly run its course in the USA, while the reaction in society and the economy approaches what we might expect from a boiling national disaster.

The stock market has plunged further and faster than it did in the Great Crash of 1929. Trillions of dollars in wealth have vanished. If Sen. Bernie Sanders does not like "millionaires and billionaires," he should be pleased. There are far fewer of them today than there were when he won the New Hampshire primary.
What does the future hold?

It may one day be said that the coronavirus delivered the deathblow to the New World Order, to a half-century of globalization and to the era of interdependence of the world's great nations.

Tourism, air travel, vacation cruises, international gatherings and festivals are already shutting down. Travel bans between countries and continents are being imposed. Conventions, concerts and sporting events are being canceled. Will the Tokyo Olympics go forward? If they do, will all the anticipated visitors from abroad come to Japan to enjoy the games?

Trump has issued a one-month travel ban on Europe.

at

Federal judge orders Bradley Manning released

 Image result for picture of bradley manning
Article by Jeff Mordock and Victor Morton in "The Washington Times":

A federal judge ordered the release of Bradley Manning from jail, days after a reported suicide attempt.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga ordered the release Thursday after ruling that there was no need to keep Mr. Manning in jail to coerce testimony.

Judge Trenga said the court had discharged the grand jury that federal prosecutors were trying to force the former Army intelligence analyst and leaker to appear before.

“The Court finds that Mr. Manning’s appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which his detention no longer serves any coercive purpose,” the judge ruled.

Manning had been jailed in Alexandria, Virginia, since May 2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about his contacts with the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks in 2010.

Last year, he served roughly two months for refusing to testify before another grand jury in March 2019. He was released, but returned to jail after he was found in contempt for dodging a second subpoena.

Manning attempted suicide Wednesday night while in custody. Details about the incident remain unclear, but his attorneys said he is recovering.

Manning was convicted in 2013 for leaking millions of State Department cables and a classified video of U.S. helicopters firing on civilians and journalists in Iraq in 2007 to WikiLeaks.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/12/chelsea-manning-release-ordered-federal-judge/
at

US Strikes Iran-Backed Militia That Hit Iraq Base

 An Iranian flag is pictured next to missiles during a war exhibition to mark the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war at Baharestan square near the Iranian Parliament in southern Tehran
Article by Greg Price in "The Daily Caller":


U.S. forces in Iraq launched airstrikes Thursday against Iranian-backed Shia militia members believed to be responsible for Wednesday’s rocket attack on Camp Taji, north of Baghdad, that killed two Americans and one British service member while wounding fifteen more.


Officials said that the strikes targeted Kataib Hezbollah weapons facilities inside Iraq and were jointly conducted with British forces.
The Pentagon released a statement confirming that the strikes were conducted in response to the rocket attacks on Wednesday:

“Earlier this evening, the United States conducted defensive precision strikes against Kata’ib Hizbollah (KH) facilities across Iraq,” the statement said. “These strikes targeted five weapon storage facilities to significantly degrade their ability to conduct future attacks against Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces. These weapons storage facilities include facilities that housed weapons used to target U.S. and coalition troops.”

“These strikes were defensive, proportional, and in direct response to the threat posed by Iranian-backed Shia militia groups (SMG) who continue to attack bases hosting OIR coalition forces,” the Pentagon added.

The strikes mark a rapid escalation in tensions with Tehran and its proxy groups in Iraq. They come just two months after Iran carried out a ballistic missile attack against American troops at the Al-Asad air base in Iraq in response to the U.S. killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/12/us-strikes-iran-backed-militia-hit-iraq-base/
at

Democrats Are Vile Pieces of Shit



Ok, I heard President Trump's address last night, then I heard Biden and Bernie's addresses. Have to say I felt better about Trump's than the two fool Democrats.

Biden babbled about the Scientists, what does he think Trump/Pence's team consists of?  Biden said nothing of substance and left me with the impression he as just an old man parroting a script.

Bernie told me he would nationalize everything and give everyone everything for free. What a laughable presentation.

Finally, all we see is the Democrats complaining and whining.

The point I hear is the Democrats want everyone tested immediately! Insanity.

I called my family physician today and asked him if I should get tested. Know what he said?

1. Are you showing the following symptoms:
  a. Fever
  b. Pain in you neck or joints?
  c. Extreme tiredness?

2.When I said no, he said I don't recommend a test then. 

I wonder do these idiot Democrats really want 327 million Americans all rushing to their family physician or the Emergency Room demanding a Coronavirus test immediately?

How fucking stupid and evil are these Liberals?

 They are breeding needless panic.
at

Coronavirus: France to close all schools as country 'faces biggest health crisis in a century'

All schools, universities and nurseries in France are to close in an attempt to contain the coronavirus outbreak, President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday as he urged over-70s to remain at home as much as possible.

In a televised speech to the country on Thursday night, President Emmanuel Macron announced sweeping new measures to try and contain the virus that had contaminated over 2,870 people so far and claimed the lives of 61 people.
"I want to be very clear with you tonight," the French President said. “We are only at the beginning of the epidemic."

Macron said he would not postpone the upcoming municipal elections, due to be held on Sunday March 15th and March 22nd.
 
"There is nothing to suggest the French shouldn't go to the polls," he said, refuting claims that the elections could not be held because people would abstain from voting out of fear of the virus.
 While urging everyone who could to work from home and limit their own movements as much as possible, he said public transport would run as usual.
 
The president urged all French businesses to let their workers do télétravail, work from home, if possible.
 
"The state will bear the financial burden of the people who have to stay home," Macron said, as he announced what he said would be "exceptional measures" to help businesses cope with any financial losses following the new measures.
 
"We won't add fear of bankruptcy and unemployment to the sanitary crisis," he said.
 
The traditional winter truce (trêve hivernal) which prevents landlords from evicting tenants during coldest months, was due to end on March 31st will be extended by two months.
 But he did warn that borders could close but decisions needed to be taken at a European level.
 
European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde on Thursday slammed "the complacency and slow motion process" of governments in the eurozone area in particular.
 
Perhaps in response to the ECB's chiding, Macron called for "a national and European stimulus plan", saying measures announced by the ECB earlier in the day were not enough
at

The Constitution Isn’t Suspended Because of Coronovirus




The city of Newark is cracking down on “coronavirus disinformation,” warning that any “false reporting” — which includes misleading “allegations” on social media — will lead to criminal prosecution. What exactly makes Newark think it has the authority to threaten speech?

And how exactly is this kind of speech code going to be enforced? How will Newark police know if the person spreading “disinformation” even lives in their city? Will they subpoena the IP address of @Goldilox5073540586732 to find out? Will they extradite people from other cities who are making false statements about Newark? What if someone on Facebook tells Newarkites — Newarkians? — that coronavirus isn’t that big of a deal? Or what if they have an unprovable theory? Will the city’s department of safety consider those illegal “allegations?”

It’s likely that the threat is simply meant to discourage despicable people and conspiracy theorists from spreading rumors. If so, I suspect it will likely have the opposite effect. Threatening randos on Twitter reeks of panic.

To a lesser extent, I also find Washington governor Jay Inslee’s decision to “ban” gatherings of over 250 people in the Seattle area concerning. Of course, it makes sense for government officials to implore citizens to stay away from large groups. And the governor has wide-ranging powers — hard to believe how wide-ranging, to be honest — to enact restrictions in times of emergency. But what if 250 individuals want to get together to protest Inslee’s ban or the Trump administration’s handling of coronavirus? What if 250 individuals want to get together to pray? What constitutional right does a governor have to stop them?

Obviously, most people aren’t going to concern themselves with civil-liberty questions as the threat of a pandemic hangs over them, but they should. Because, as we’ve seen, while some threats are real, it’s easy to scaremonger — think “climate emergency” or “gun-violence epidemic” — in an effort to chip away at our rights.

at

New Chief of Border Patrol Has Great News: the New Wall Is Changing ‘Everything,’ Illegal Crossings Plummet



One of President Donald Trump’s basic promises was building a border wall.

It’s been going up and now some of the results are in, and the new chief of the border patrol is saying the new wall system “changes everything.”

Chief Rodney Scott said that there has been a big change where the 135-136 miles of new wall, roadways and high tech spyware has gone up.

According to Scott, parts of the wall were 90% effective, up from just 10% prior to the new parts being installed. “It changes everything,” he said. “There is a huge return on investment,” he added.
In the San Diego area, Scott said that the wall has essentially ended illegal crossings of humans and cars.
And, in an added benefit, it now requires 150 fewer border agents, a savings of $28 million in salaries and benefits, he said at a press briefing, his first since he and Ortiz took over CBP in January.
Plus, with a better border road, vehicles that once fell apart at 40,000-60,000 miles now last to 100,000 miles before they are auctioned off.
“There is return after return,” said Scott.
The wall is especially good at stopping trucks and cars, he said, because it takes too much time and effort to saw through several wall bollards needed to make an opening that is big enough to drive through.
“The border wall system all but stopped that completely,” he said.

Scott said that in and around San Ysidro, the wall has even brought an economic boost because now the area is safer. There’s now a factory outlet mall that creates $6.6 million in local tax revenue and a pricey housing development. The beachfront Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve has also improved with less drug trafficking through the area. 

It goes without saying also that the fact that immigration enforcement, the wall and using Mexico like a wall with the Remain in Mexico program is more important than ever now with the concern about the Wuhan virus, especially if people are entering illegally and can’t be checked coming from affected areas like China. One of the biggest non-Mexican, non-Central American illegal groups across the border is Chinese people. Trump had officially shut down legal entry in January from affected areas of China. Of course now, the virus is in multiple countries so it’s definitely a good defense to have in hand.

at

Biden Claimed Autoworker Was Lying When He Said Biden Wanted to Take Guns, But Here's Video of Biden Saying It

We reported on the confrontation that Joe Biden had with an autoworker at a Michigan plant after the man asked a question about guns.

Biden flipped out after the man said that he’d seen a video of Biden saying he wanted to take people’s guns. Biden responded that that was a lie, that he didn’t want to take people’s guns. Here was that confrontation where he threatened to slap the man in the face or take him outside.



From 
BIDEN: No. No. Shush, shush. I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment just like right now if you yelled fire, that’s not free speech. From the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt. Guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapon. I am not taking your gun away at all. Do you need 100 rounds? No.
AUTOWORKER: When you said you’re going to take our guns.–
BIDEN (yelling over him): I did not say that! I did not!
But indeed, let’s flashback to last August, and see that the man, Jerry Wayne was absolutely right.

Here’s Biden saying yes, indeed, “bingo,” he did want to take your guns.



He rants and make an unintelligible statement about the assault weapons that have “100 rounds.” As he revealed in his confrontation with Jerry Wayne, he appears to think that an AR-15 (or in Biden vernacular, an AR-14) is a machine gun or automatic weapon with a 100 rounds.

“To gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden Administration means they’re going to come for my guns…”

“Bingo, you’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal. Period. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that you can’t restrict the type of weapons that people own.”

Yes, Joe, it does. That’s exactly what the Second Amendment does. Now the Supreme Court does define that further, saying in the Heller case that any gun in common usage would be protected. The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in the country. It’s the very definition of “common use”; it’s not a “weapon of war,” it’s not used in the military, it’s not an automatic weapon and it fires one bullet per trigger pull. 

Not only did Joe say this in August, just before Super Tuesday, he embraced Beto O’Rourke and said that he would be putting Beto in charge of guns if there was a Biden administration.



Beto has said that if people didn’t comply with a ban, then law enforcement might have to go their homes to get their guns. Famously, he said “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s and your AK 47s!”

On Wednesday, Joe Biden’s chief aide Symone Sanders also confirmed that yes, Biden wanted to ban “assault weapons” (whatever that might encompass).



So looks like Jerry Wayne was exactly right. That’s why Biden freaked out and threatened to slap him and take him outside, because Joe clearly can’t handle the truth.

at

Coronavirus Toilet Paper Humor




at

What If Coronavirus Had Been More Serious?


There must be a new way forward that frees the United States from dependency on a country that seeks to harm us. We should seize the moment before it’s too late.


 Whatever may be the outcome of the Chinese coronavirus outbreak, it has most assuredly highlighted multiple weaknesses in U.S. policy on immigration and manufacturing. As alarmism and panic grow, whipped up in part by those hoping to damage the president in an election year, the virus—though certainly serious—appears much less likely to be as devastating as people thought it might be.

But what if it was?

What if this had been a pandemic on the level of the 1918 Spanish Flu that infected nearly one-third of the U.S. population and killed between 500,000 to 675,000. For perspective, the U.S. population at the time was just over 100 million. The equivalent death toll in our present-day population would be 1.5 million at a minimum.

What would be the results if a virus of that potency hit our shores with our porous borders and manufacturing weaknesses? What would be the impact on our healthcare system? Would it be able to withstand the pressure? I don’t think so.

As I have written, if the barbaric Chinese Communists should decide to withhold antibiotics and other medications, we are in a precarious position.

With the overwhelming majority of our antibiotics and drug supplies coming from China, juxtapose that with the fact that nearly 50 percent of Americansdepend on these medications every day. What would happen if the Communist Chinese decided to weaponize that dependence?

If you think the hysteria over the coronavirus has been overwhelming, imagine how much worse it would be in the face of a real pandemic with a quickly dwindling supply of antibiotics? Now throw real panic into the mix as drug supplies disappear. Our healthcare system might actually implode under the weight of that pressure.

Almost no one is talking about this, yet they should be. Sixteen years ago, our last plant producing penicillin shut down. A New York Times story highlighted the problem—in 2009. Nobody cared. As the United States shuttered its medicinal manufacturing plants, China, which had been making heavy investments into penicillin fermentation since the early 1980s, stepped in and took a massive market share.

The offshoring of the production of antibiotics and drugs was a combination of two factors: corporatism, yes, but also the regulatory state.

We’ve seen the abuses of power that have taken place over the last few years as administrative state actors decided they would use the surveillance state and law enforcement for political purposes to target opponents over policy differences. But here we see that there are other dangers posed to citizens from the overreach of the administrative state: Namely, a regulatory regime that makes domestic production so onerous it drives that production offshore and then undermines our national interests.

But just as coronavirus has demonstrated our weaknesses with regard to antibiotic and drug manufacturing, yet again we are reminded that we do not have an adequate handle on who is coming in and out of our country.

Political pundits should not question the president’s motives or heap scorn on his quick decision to restrict the entry of people in to the United States from countries fighting major outbreaks of the Wuhan virus. His decisiveness in January most certainly bought us time.

In fact, Trump could be, and should be, even more aggressive.

The president ought to limit the points of entry to merely five: JFK, LAX, New Orleans, Vancouver, and Buffalo. He should restrict travel to places like Italy and China until this outbreak is a thing of the past. But it also should be a chance for him to remind the American people that in the event of a truly devastating pandemic, our southern border in its current state poses a real hazard to the American people.

While the media is doing its best to undermine Trump’s handling of the Wuhan virus, the president can flip the entire narrative on its head. The media wants to induce panic. Fine, we’ll play that game if that’s the way it’s going to be. Let’s see Trump turn it against them and take the chance to show Americans the weaknesses this virus has displayed in our unacceptable immigration and manufacturing systems.

We need to bring pharmaceutical production home. Trump should insist on it and make it an issue in the campaign. We need to secure our borders. Again, highlight this need in the coming election while there’s even more evidence for it.

There must be a new way forward that frees the United States from dependency on a country that seeks to harm us.  We have been given a second chance to correct our foolish faults. We should seize the moment before it’s too late.

at

Wall Street Elites Made Us Dependent On China


Choosing to invest in China versus the United States is not a simple dollars and cents bottom-line calculation.


As America faces possible shortages of antibiotics, face masks, iPhones and various other items now produced in China, it’s time to consider how we got here.

Although it looks like the blame lies with thousands of businesses in different industries, in this case, we’d do well to round up the usual suspects, a smaller number of players operating in one particular industry: big finance.
The financialization of the economy gave Wall Street primacy over the productive economy. Financiers drove the consolidation of various industries into fewer and fewer hands, harvesting billions of dollars first through the sell-off of productive assets in a mania of mergers, private equity, and leveraged buyouts, and then through global labor arbitrage as they drove (what was left of) America’s industries offshore.

Wall Street bet on substituting well-paid American labor with Communist China’s regimented cheap labor and replacing sales to a (once) prosperous American middle class with sales to China’s managerial class.

Affinity to one’s place of birth, fellow citizens, or culture did not fit in their MBA spreadsheet.

They first justified the calculus that created the largest transfer of wealth in human history with the Cobdenite utopian fantasy that as China grew more prosperous, it would also become more democratic, less militaristic, and so forth.

When that outcome did not materialize, the financiers found a new rationale: manufacturing (or coding or whatever) should be done in China because … shareholder value! Boards of directors of publicly traded companies demanded it. Venture capitalists forced startups to accept it.

The slick telegenic sharks of Shark Tank were so cocksure of the prevailing conventional wisdom they told a pickup truck driving entrepreneur committed to hiring Americans to build his product, “Get lost.”

And as big banks gobbled up smaller regional banks, lending to local manufacturers—the backbone of what was once the U.S. manufacturing supply chain—dried up.

Meanwhile, the management consultants, financiers, and politicians in both parties told us working with China was a win-win. We were beyond the era of competition; this was now a non-zero-sum game.

Wrong again. It is zero-sum.

Every dollar invested in China is a dollar not invested in America.

Every dollar invested in developing the skills, talents, and workforce of China is one not developing the skills, talents, and workforce of America.

Nor can we kid ourselves and believe an ascendant China will do the job of building up America. If you think that’s credible, watch “American Factory.”

The Obamas’ Oscar-winning documentary shows the clash of Chinese Communist authoritarianism and American values when a Chinese company takes over an American auto parts factory.

That takeover occurred thanks to the Obama Administration’s Wall Street-driven auto industry bailout. The financiers who engineered that bailout believed it didn’t matter who owns factories or even where they are. If the spreadsheet says it’s “more efficient” to make widgets in China, so be it.

Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H. W. Bush, captured the worldview from beneath a green eyeshade perfectly when he declared, “It does not make any difference whether a country makes computer chips or potato chips.”

But now we’ve learned what we should have known all along. Of course it matters.
And it especially matters when a hostile foreign power has a monopoly on those computer chips, medicines, and other essential commodities.

Fact is, choosing to invest in China versus the United States is not a simple dollars-and-cents, bottom-line calculation. Certain “externalities” enter into the equation. Externalities such as national security. Externalities such as the continued existence of the United States. Externalities such as the continued existence of freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and individual liberty in this world.

By now it should be crystal clear to anyone but the willfully blind that the communist party ruling China holds and promotes values antithetical to our own.

It does not believe in free speech or God. It believes it should control every aspect of life and has constructed a technological surveillance apparatus to enforce the subordination of individuals to the state, euphemistically termed “the harmonious society.”

Even worse, the Chinese Communist Party is not content with imposing its totalitarian vision just on its own citizens. It is intent on exporting its governance model to the rest of the world.

Beijing demands allegiance from other governments and anyone it does business with including most notably American businesses. We’ve seen that with the NBA, Google, and Hollywood among others.

We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that the Chinese Communist Party is in any way friendly to our way of life.

China wants to replace the United States as the world’s superpower. It wants the world to emulate its totalitarian model, not American ideals of individual liberty.
We know this because China says so.

The late Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin said when the enemy tells you he wants to destroy you, believe him. Don’t doubt him for a moment.

China has told us what it wants to do. Are Wall Street and Washington listening?

at

‘Project Python’ targets Mexico’s most dangerous drug cartel, more than 600 arrests made

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 6:55 AM PT — Thursday, March 12, 2020
The Trump administration has scored a significant victory against Mexico’s most dangerous drug cartel. On Wednesday, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Department of Justice announced the conclusion of ‘Project Python.’
The operation was a six month multi-agency enforcement campaign against the Jalisco New Generation cartel also known as the CJNG. It led to more than 600 arrests with 250 of those on Wednesday alone. Authorities also conducted significant seizures of illicit drugs and weapons.
“Cartel de Jalisco New Generation, CJNG, is the single criminal organization most responsible for these deaths on both sides of the border,” stated Bill Bodner, DEA Special Agent in Charge. “Project Python, which culminated today, was a long term, national synchronized enforcement operation with the goal of disrupting, dismantling and destroying elements of CJNG.’

Although the cartel is a relative newcomer, having been founded in 2009, it has quickly become one of the fastest-growing criminal organizations in the world. It’s believed to have a presence in 24 of Mexico’s 32 states and frequently carries out acts of extreme violence against both government officials as well as rival cartels.
“CJNG was targeted primarily for two reasons: the rapid expansion of territory they control in Mexico, which they accomplished through extreme use of violence and intimidation, and their proficiency in driving the production of synthetic drugs in Mexico,” Agent Bodner explained.
CJNG is also a major contributor to cross-border smuggling and violence in the United States. It’s estimated to control between one-third and two-thirds of the U.S. drug market with hubs in Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Houston and Atlanta.
“CJNG is responsible for much of the methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and synthetic opioids that we see on our streets,” said Nick Hanna, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. “And they use some of that drug money to buy high-powered weapons in the United States.”
The Department of Justice has also set its sights on CJNG ‘s presumptive leader Nemesio Oseguera, who is also known as ‘El Mencho.’ The alleged crime boss has been placed at the top of the DEA’s’ most wanted list and a multi-million dollar reward has been offered for information resulting in his capture.

His son, Ruben Oseguera, who allegedly controlled the cartel’s finances was extradited to the U.S. from Mexico last month to face criminal charges related to drug trafficking.
The alleged drug lords daughter, Jessica Oseguera, was also arrested last month as she sought to visit her brother in court. The charges against her have not been made public and she was released on bail last week.
https://www.oann.com/project-python-targets-mexicos-most-dangerous-drug-cartel-more-than-600-arrests-made/
at

If China Is the Problem, Can’t...


If China Is the Problem, 

Can't We at Least Have Free Trade with Everyone Else?

 

 

 

It remains unclear how much the stock market implosion of recent days will affect the larger economy. As David Stockman has noted often, the Wall Street economy is not synonymous with the Main Street economy, contrary to what the advocates of rampant bank bailouts and financialization would have us believe.

Nevertheless, fear of a general crisis has driven Donald Trump to hint that tax cuts should be on the table.

That's good news, and the first place Trump should start—since he has the authority to unilaterally do so in many cases—is reducing trade barriers.

It is certainly true that Trump's trade war against China has reduced real wages for Americans, raised the cost of doing business for entrepreneurs, and generally hobbled the US economy. Trump's protectionism serves mostly to pander to select interest groups (such as organized labor and steel factory owners) while raising net taxes for everyone else. (See: "Smashing Protectionist 'Theory' (Again)" by Murray Rothbard).

It's Not Just a China Thing

An Rothbard explains, economics-based arguments made by protectionists against free trade fail again and again (see also the many linked resources at the end of this article), but I am aware that there are many non-economics-based arguments against free trade with China. (These geopolitical and sociological arguments appeal to non-monetary benefits of protectionism, and implicitly concede protectionism does not bring net monetary gain.) But even these arguments tend to focus on China as the real threat. After all, few people outside doctrinaire protectionist circles are willing to buy that South Africa, Brazil, or India — let alone Australia, Italy, or Peru — pose threats to the self-determination or physical defense of Americans.

But let's leave the issue of trade with China alone for the moment. Since I'm such a moderate and accommodating fellow toward my critics who advocate for a war of economic nationalism against China, let's turn our attention instead to every country that isn't named China.

The claim that free trade is bad because it fosters a supercharged China obviously doesn't apply to anyone else. Russia's economy is a tiny fraction of the US's. Mexico is no geopolitical threat to the US whatsoever, and indeed Mexico depends on US prosperity for its own prosperity. The US has been at peace with the entire Anglosphere for more than two hundred years, and all other large countries are either US allies or far too small to present any sort of real geopolitical threat.

So, why are there so many US trade barriers constricting trade with the world outside of China?

The answer is simply bad economics and interest group politics. Many industries want to use protectionism as a weapon to protect their industry at the expense of taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and consumers overall.

This applies, of course, to tariffs on tech, sugar and all other agricultural products, minerals and metals, automobiles, and a host of other products.

It's Not Just Tariffs

But trade barriers are also much more than tariffs. It's misleading to look at a tariff schedule since this does not give us a sense of the many barriers to trade that actually exist. Nontariff trade barriers are actually quite common.

Yes, it's true that imposed tariff rates tend to be low, averaging around 2 percent. But it's important to remember that those are "best case scenario" tariffs in the sense that low tariff rates are imposed only on goods that meet a wide array of other nontariff requirements on potential imports.

As noted here at mises.org earlier this month, the United States is actuallya world leader in imposing nontariff trade barriers, such as
  • Subsidizing US industries so as to help them outcompete foreign goods.
  • Requiring government procurement of domestic products only (known as "public procurement" policies).
  • Placing quotas on imports.
  • "Rules of origin" preventing "transshipment" of goods from third parties through countries with "free trade" access.
  • "Sanitary and phytosanitary measures," which are controls on the importation of foods affected by substances such as beef hormones and "genetically modified organisms."
  • Regulatory requirements on the production of foreign goods, including mandates on foreign wages, labor unions, and environmental regulations.
  • Imposing packaging, labeling, and product standards.

Since the 1950s, these barriers have been increasingly used by the US government and other governments to reduce imports, and "[n]ontariff barriers [have] spread to substitute for the tariffs previously bargained away. Pressure began to surface for retaliation to punish trade partners for unfair trade barriers and unreciprocated tariff cuts. All of this was a prelude to the changes that would overtake U.S. trade policy in [the 1960s]."1

These barriers are applied generally, and not at all just specifically to China.

Thus, when protectionists insist trade barriers must be kept in place in order to combat "a rising China" they are mostly talking about barriers that apply to the world outside of China as well. Basically, these enemies of innovation, entrepreneurship, and productive Americans are using China to justify an enormous government bureaucracy designed to limit trade in order to benefit a small number of special interests such as labor unions and environmentalists.

Step One: Open Up Trade with Every Country Not Called "China"

Although it's true that an ideal policy would let Americans chose for themselves whether or not they want goods from China, a perfectly sane first step would be to drastically reduce or eliminate the trade barriers imposed against goods coming in from the rest of the world. Protectionists may claim that imported lumber from Canada is a grave threat to American security and propserity, but these claims are frankly and utterly incoherent. Imported goods are essential to American productivity and prosperity. For exmple, Canadian lumber is a boon to US homebuilders and millions of Americans who wants to buy a home or rent an apartment. Imported vehicles from Mexico may make the difference between a profitable business and a failed business for American entrepreneurs who need delivery vehicles.  And of course, on the household level, imported goods may mean the difference between a household that lives paycheck to paycheck, and one that manages to sock away a little bit of savings each month.

Trade barriers, on the other hand, make both business and workers wasteful and incapable of dealing with innovations and productivity gains in the rest of the world. This is why the protected dinosaur industries of the Rust Belt couldn't even keep up with domestic US industries in other regions of the country. 

Protectionists Resort to Violence to Enforce Their Whims

Protectionists, of course, will continue to attempt to trick people with their sleight of hand which conflates trade in general with the public's fear of Chinese geopolitical growth. It's an easy political ploy that often works. And when people aren't convinced? Then the protectionists lobby for laws that ensure people who engage in non-government-approved trade will be jailed.  After all, you can't have protectionism without jailers to enforce it.

However, a sound understanding of the economics of trade—and an understanding of how US trade policy also limits trade with everyone who isn't China—should lead us to conclude that most trade barriers have little to do with what the anti-China activists are going on about.

Thus, Trump could embrace free trade without even backtracking on his anti-China rhetoric. He'd just have to admit that freedom is a good thing and that American business owners and consumers ought to be free to chose to buy goods from Mexico or South Korea or the United Kingdom if they like. Unfortunately, freedom isn't a big priority in Washington.


at