Donald Trump's doolally formula for calculating tariffs proves once and for all that he has no idea what he is talking about, and no connection to any political tradition that understood the proper role of protectionism, be that Hamiltonianism or the Alternative Economic Strategy of Tony Benn, who would have been 100 today. But there is no way that Trump devised that formula. Someone else is also to blame.
Britain is on the same tariff as Iran, but there is none on Russia or North Korea. Neither of those may trade much with the United States, but nor is either inhabited solely by penguins. Britain matters to the US no more than Iran does, and less than Russia or North Korea. At least we matter more than Israel, or Japan, or South Korea, or Thailand, or anywhere in the European Union, including Italy or Ireland.
If we have such a close intelligence relationship with the Americans, then how come our spooks never saw this coming? And Marco Rubio has a nerve, ordering other NATO Foreign Ministers to increase military spending to five per cent of GDP hours after Trump's speech. So as to buy weapons from whom, do you reckon? At least we are presumably not be represented much longer in such deliberations by David Lammy, since he is going to have to resign in order to vote against Shabana Mahmood's Bill to override the sentencing guidelines that gave effect to his commissioned advice to the previous Conservative Government. Or have I missed something?
A judge can order a pre-sentence report on anyone, does not have to give a reason, and would not dream of doing so. There would be no way of proving that a judge had implemented the paused guidelines, which were in force for an entire morning's sitting, and there would be no reason for a judge to care that you could. Not that I agree with them, I must add. I first gave a speech against the division and weakening of the Left by identity politics in 1997. Today's Benn centenary is the ideal opportunity to implore the voters of Runcorn and Helsby to make that point by electing the eminent Peter Ford of the Workers Party.
This post simply proves that it is you that has no idea what you are talking about. Far from being "doolally" the formula is designed to eradicate America's trade deficit with the rest of the world on a country-by-country basis-textbook protectionism in the tradition of 'America First' and Disraeli. Everyone who understand economics understands that formula and its objective perfectly well.
ReplyDeleteTrump's Republicans have completely upended the free market order-as David Dimbelby wrote, the main threat to free markets now comes from the Right.
This is most certainly not textbook protectionism, any more than alchemy is textbook chemistry.
DeleteIt is a perfectly simple formula to anyone who is not simple: it’s designed to achieve the objective of protectionism and protect native industries by correcting the trade imbalance with the rest of the world. It’s precisely calibrated to correct the trade deficit with every other country (or bloc, such as the EU). And it has nothing to do with liking Russia more than us: America does hardly any trade with Russia, has no deficit with them and has Russia under heavy sanctions.
ReplyDeleteLike everywhere else, America does no trade with Heard Island or the McDonald Islands.
DeleteI did not say that the formula was difficult to understand. I said that it was barmy.
Are there not sanctions on Russia and North Korea?
ReplyDeleteThere are on Iran. But it is still on the same tariff as Britain.
Delete