I’m writing here, because it looks like you’ve returned to, “paid only” for comments, and, much as I appreciate your work, I simply am not in a position to pay.
What do you say to the people who believe that these tariffs will force companies to move their operations to domestic soil? That is supposed to help Americans get jobs. Currently, the latest employment numbers are subterranean. Comparable to when businesses were shut down due to Covid. So embarrassingly so, that Donald fired the messenger, thereby destroying credibility, if employment numbers ever go back up.
Will data centers crash the economy? By Noah Smith.
Destroyed credibility notwithstanding, what if actual employment (not merely no longer credible numbers) actually does go up, eventually, due to tariffs? Is there a better way to get them up, without irritating other nations?
With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down.
Do you have a response to either of these optimistic expectations? To the theoretically better way?
P.S.
You made a generous offer, to continue reading certain posts for free.
Unfortunately, the link sent, was exclusively to use the substack app, to unlock it. But not everyone uses iOS or Android, to read your posts.
Why not provide another way to read them, for those of us who appreciate your dedication, thoughts, and solid suggestions?
Aleithia, I know this wasn't meant for me, but do you mind if I take a stab at your questions?
"Destroyed credibility notwithstanding, what if actual employment (not merely no longer credible numbers) actually does go up, eventually, due to tariffs? Is there a better way to get them up, without irritating other nations?
With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down.
Do you have a response to either of these optimistic expectations? To the theoretically better way?"
This is what I would say. First, as you have seen, the jobs reports, once properly revised, have been abysmal. I would only further note that manufacturing jobs were DOWN in July. A very important point, as for the past 6-7 months we have really only dealt with TACO Trump, and not Full-on Tariff Trump.
You also correctly noted that Trump's firing of the statistics messenger undermines credibility. But beyond that, our economy is based on that credibility. That confidence in our numbers is a big part of what gives investors the confidence to invest in our economy. It is what has made America strong, and what has made the American dollar strong.
There is so much about "the economy" that really is about psychology. And pissing off the rest of the world pretty much across-the-board (from Europe to Africa) is not really helping you long-term, even if (in theory) it created jobs short-term.
(By the way, the Admin's approach to Africa, one without many real trade accomplishments/"deals", is especially shortsighted long-term because, by 2100, estimates suggest that Africa will have a majority of the world's babies born. Even before then, by 2050, one in four people on the planet will be African).
So, there is a better way to get them up "without irritating other nations," as you put it? Definitely. But I also think you are getting at something deeper with your question...
And indeed, I worry about it myself at some level. That is, America can use its leverage, even as a "dying giant," to give Trump at least SOME short-term gains that he could market to his base and the country as a whole. In fact, that is why I thought it so important to write this open letter to the European Union.
Could a short-term increase in actual employment be one of those short-term gains? I won't dismiss the idea entirely. Though, from what I have seen, any promises of investment in America, whether by American companies or foreign nations, have generally involved either unrealistic investment plans that the companies or nations could easily abandon or they have involved repackaging investments that would have already been made.
But, for actual employment to increase, beyond the status quo where most of our share of American jobs are actually located in places like the healthcare industry, those investments would need to happen. If they don't pan out, no actual employment increase. That may be why we have seen a DECLINE in manufacturing in July. Already. Before Tariff Mania took place a day ago.
"With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down."
I believe you are talking about revenues raised from barge and port fees by the government, is that correct? Again, who knows how exactly things could pan out, but there is a very very very strong case against this happening. Namely, the government (not the companies) draw the revenues. Separate from the government, the companies are taking the hit in some way for importing foreign goods or parts or whatever, and then they either take the hit or pass it on to the consumer.
Most of the time, because companies aren't generous like you or I, they will pass it along to the consumer. How much prices will rise in Trump's chaos is an open question. That they will rise--and even that they are ALREADY rising--is not really an open question.
Now, what could Trump do? Give the gov's tariff revenues back to the companies, so that they don't feel they have to raise prices? Well, that defeats the whole purpose of tariffs, and prices would stay about the same. They wouldn't go down, right? Because Trump is only setting these companies even.
Even if Trump got the interest rates lowered to encourage investment, that has the risk of overheating the economy by bringing up demand. More than that, it does not give anyone any reason to believe that the U.S. is safe to invest in LONG-TERM or even short-term.
So that's my two cents. Happy to answer any questions you have about that. I believe Lori, at any rate, is on vacation, so she will probably not be answering your questions until September :)
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment, your kind words about my work, and the care you take in engaging with the topics I cover. I really value readers like you who think deeply about these issues.
You’re right that I’ve temporarily switched comments to paid-only. Before leaving for my annual break, I let readers know that I’d be taking a genuine rest from social media, and that I wouldn’t be responding to messages or comments until I return. Experience has taught me that, even with those notices, I’ll still receive a steady flow of thoughtful questions (like yours!) that I’d feel compelled to answer — and that means I’m never truly “off”.
While I’ll still be sharing a couple of posts while I’m away, I’m doing so in a way that allows me to protect my health and return recharged. This short pause from open comments is part of that.
I’ll be back on 1 September and will be glad to revisit conversations like the one you’ve raised then, when I can give them the attention they deserve.
Thank you again for understanding, and for being part of this community.
This entire exchange is exactly what the work is all about.
Aleithia, thank you for asking such a sharp, crucial question. You cut directly to the heart of the matter and refused to accept the easy narrative. That's the foundation of all real analysis.
David, your reply was outstanding. You articulated the systemic reality perfectly—that much of the "economy" is psychology, that corporate promises are often PR, and that we must not sacrifice long-term strategic positioning for the illusion of short-term gains. You've demonstrated the kind of clear-eyed, principled thinking we need.
This is how we win. Not by waiting for a single voice to have all the answers, but by building a community of thinkers who can deconstruct the propaganda together, in the open. Thank you both for modeling that so powerfully.
The problem is Ukraine signed a deal with the feckless DJT for rare earth minerals, and DJT seems to me likely to hand it over to Putin. Ukraine should have buried a clause prohibiting that.
I get what you are saying, and I also get why Ukraine is in a uniquely difficult position. At least, unless Europe stepped up some more to cover what would be missing if the US stopped giving aid altogether.
So, that is why I apply a slightly different standard to Ukraine than Europe. Also, my understanding is that the minerals deal was not fleshed out, it was vague, there were very little commitments, and that Trump got considerably less than he asked for the first time around. Do you think I am mistaken in any of that assessment?
If not, and if the deal is vague, then Ukraine can back off from its commitments. And, for what it's worth, any PR "victory" Trump got from that deal was totally minimal. So I am not overly worried about it, based off of what I know.
Regardless, I hope Europe steps up, and I hope Ukraine continues to innovate so that it does not need American money and fights the war on its terms (eventually and soon). For more on the latter (how they fight the war on their own terms), you might want to check out Phillips P. O'Brien's blog (I have the honor to say that he is a free subscriber of mine as well).
So frustrating that everyone in power seems to be ignoring the domestic situation in the US. Maybe because I don’t have enough international subscriptions, but it seems like no one has said, “Hey, USA - your new immigration policy is violating human rights!”
An Australian told me it is because the countries are trying to figure out how to beat deal with him and the mess he is creating internationally. Since we were dumb enough to elect him, whatever disasters the American public suffers are their own.
I can understand it, but I wish so much for more action than that.
Hi, Lori,
I’m writing here, because it looks like you’ve returned to, “paid only” for comments, and, much as I appreciate your work, I simply am not in a position to pay.
What do you say to the people who believe that these tariffs will force companies to move their operations to domestic soil? That is supposed to help Americans get jobs. Currently, the latest employment numbers are subterranean. Comparable to when businesses were shut down due to Covid. So embarrassingly so, that Donald fired the messenger, thereby destroying credibility, if employment numbers ever go back up.
See the first part of:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/will-data-centers-crash-the-economy?pu
Will data centers crash the economy? By Noah Smith.
Destroyed credibility notwithstanding, what if actual employment (not merely no longer credible numbers) actually does go up, eventually, due to tariffs? Is there a better way to get them up, without irritating other nations?
With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down.
Do you have a response to either of these optimistic expectations? To the theoretically better way?
P.S.
You made a generous offer, to continue reading certain posts for free.
Unfortunately, the link sent, was exclusively to use the substack app, to unlock it. But not everyone uses iOS or Android, to read your posts.
Why not provide another way to read them, for those of us who appreciate your dedication, thoughts, and solid suggestions?
Thanks for your newsletter issues.
Aleithia, I know this wasn't meant for me, but do you mind if I take a stab at your questions?
"Destroyed credibility notwithstanding, what if actual employment (not merely no longer credible numbers) actually does go up, eventually, due to tariffs? Is there a better way to get them up, without irritating other nations?
With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down.
Do you have a response to either of these optimistic expectations? To the theoretically better way?"
This is what I would say. First, as you have seen, the jobs reports, once properly revised, have been abysmal. I would only further note that manufacturing jobs were DOWN in July. A very important point, as for the past 6-7 months we have really only dealt with TACO Trump, and not Full-on Tariff Trump.
You also correctly noted that Trump's firing of the statistics messenger undermines credibility. But beyond that, our economy is based on that credibility. That confidence in our numbers is a big part of what gives investors the confidence to invest in our economy. It is what has made America strong, and what has made the American dollar strong.
There is so much about "the economy" that really is about psychology. And pissing off the rest of the world pretty much across-the-board (from Europe to Africa) is not really helping you long-term, even if (in theory) it created jobs short-term.
(By the way, the Admin's approach to Africa, one without many real trade accomplishments/"deals", is especially shortsighted long-term because, by 2100, estimates suggest that Africa will have a majority of the world's babies born. Even before then, by 2050, one in four people on the planet will be African).
So, there is a better way to get them up "without irritating other nations," as you put it? Definitely. But I also think you are getting at something deeper with your question...
And indeed, I worry about it myself at some level. That is, America can use its leverage, even as a "dying giant," to give Trump at least SOME short-term gains that he could market to his base and the country as a whole. In fact, that is why I thought it so important to write this open letter to the European Union.
Could a short-term increase in actual employment be one of those short-term gains? I won't dismiss the idea entirely. Though, from what I have seen, any promises of investment in America, whether by American companies or foreign nations, have generally involved either unrealistic investment plans that the companies or nations could easily abandon or they have involved repackaging investments that would have already been made.
But, for actual employment to increase, beyond the status quo where most of our share of American jobs are actually located in places like the healthcare industry, those investments would need to happen. If they don't pan out, no actual employment increase. That may be why we have seen a DECLINE in manufacturing in July. Already. Before Tariff Mania took place a day ago.
"With the savings in barge and port fees, it is also supposed to make consumer prices go down."
I believe you are talking about revenues raised from barge and port fees by the government, is that correct? Again, who knows how exactly things could pan out, but there is a very very very strong case against this happening. Namely, the government (not the companies) draw the revenues. Separate from the government, the companies are taking the hit in some way for importing foreign goods or parts or whatever, and then they either take the hit or pass it on to the consumer.
Most of the time, because companies aren't generous like you or I, they will pass it along to the consumer. How much prices will rise in Trump's chaos is an open question. That they will rise--and even that they are ALREADY rising--is not really an open question.
Now, what could Trump do? Give the gov's tariff revenues back to the companies, so that they don't feel they have to raise prices? Well, that defeats the whole purpose of tariffs, and prices would stay about the same. They wouldn't go down, right? Because Trump is only setting these companies even.
Even if Trump got the interest rates lowered to encourage investment, that has the risk of overheating the economy by bringing up demand. More than that, it does not give anyone any reason to believe that the U.S. is safe to invest in LONG-TERM or even short-term.
So that's my two cents. Happy to answer any questions you have about that. I believe Lori, at any rate, is on vacation, so she will probably not be answering your questions until September :)
P.S. Here's a good article for you too: https://kyla.substack.com/p/how-ai-healthcare-and-labubu-became
Hi Aleithia
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment, your kind words about my work, and the care you take in engaging with the topics I cover. I really value readers like you who think deeply about these issues.
You’re right that I’ve temporarily switched comments to paid-only. Before leaving for my annual break, I let readers know that I’d be taking a genuine rest from social media, and that I wouldn’t be responding to messages or comments until I return. Experience has taught me that, even with those notices, I’ll still receive a steady flow of thoughtful questions (like yours!) that I’d feel compelled to answer — and that means I’m never truly “off”.
While I’ll still be sharing a couple of posts while I’m away, I’m doing so in a way that allows me to protect my health and return recharged. This short pause from open comments is part of that.
I’ll be back on 1 September and will be glad to revisit conversations like the one you’ve raised then, when I can give them the attention they deserve.
Thank you again for understanding, and for being part of this community.
Warmly
Lori
This entire exchange is exactly what the work is all about.
Aleithia, thank you for asking such a sharp, crucial question. You cut directly to the heart of the matter and refused to accept the easy narrative. That's the foundation of all real analysis.
David, your reply was outstanding. You articulated the systemic reality perfectly—that much of the "economy" is psychology, that corporate promises are often PR, and that we must not sacrifice long-term strategic positioning for the illusion of short-term gains. You've demonstrated the kind of clear-eyed, principled thinking we need.
This is how we win. Not by waiting for a single voice to have all the answers, but by building a community of thinkers who can deconstruct the propaganda together, in the open. Thank you both for modeling that so powerfully.
The problem is Ukraine signed a deal with the feckless DJT for rare earth minerals, and DJT seems to me likely to hand it over to Putin. Ukraine should have buried a clause prohibiting that.
I get what you are saying, and I also get why Ukraine is in a uniquely difficult position. At least, unless Europe stepped up some more to cover what would be missing if the US stopped giving aid altogether.
So, that is why I apply a slightly different standard to Ukraine than Europe. Also, my understanding is that the minerals deal was not fleshed out, it was vague, there were very little commitments, and that Trump got considerably less than he asked for the first time around. Do you think I am mistaken in any of that assessment?
If not, and if the deal is vague, then Ukraine can back off from its commitments. And, for what it's worth, any PR "victory" Trump got from that deal was totally minimal. So I am not overly worried about it, based off of what I know.
Regardless, I hope Europe steps up, and I hope Ukraine continues to innovate so that it does not need American money and fights the war on its terms (eventually and soon). For more on the latter (how they fight the war on their own terms), you might want to check out Phillips P. O'Brien's blog (I have the honor to say that he is a free subscriber of mine as well).
So frustrating that everyone in power seems to be ignoring the domestic situation in the US. Maybe because I don’t have enough international subscriptions, but it seems like no one has said, “Hey, USA - your new immigration policy is violating human rights!”
An Australian told me it is because the countries are trying to figure out how to beat deal with him and the mess he is creating internationally. Since we were dumb enough to elect him, whatever disasters the American public suffers are their own.
I can understand it, but I wish so much for more action than that.