Posted On: Saturday - April 12th 2025 8:22PM MST
In Topics: Trump Pundits Globalists China Economics Big-Biz Stupidity
The Trump tariffs have Americans and foreigners affected in a tizzy. Regular Americans see their 401(k)s dropping and may be fooled again by the "tariffs cause Great Depression" civic mythology. The Globalist elites here have no problem with bad trade deals for America and Americans - they just want to keep the China-made Crap flowing in, shoddier and shoddier by the year, to keep the Big-Biz bottom lines increasing.
There are foreigners, and there are foreigners. Most of them, the Canadians and the Euro's, don't like Trump to begin with and surely don't like him exposing the one-sidedness of our trade with them. America has been a patsy, due to our thinking that we'd be that sole economic superpower forever and our benevolence in lifting up the world won't catch up to us.
Then there are the Chinese foreigners. It's at a whole nother level with China. We have given so much up for China (and Globalist Big Biz profits), our manufacturing and our trade secrets, and experienced a big decline in human capital with absolutely no gratitude given in return. (The CCP doesn't do gratitude.)
One thing that makes Trump helpful to Americans is that he knows bad deals when he sees them, and he doesn't like getting screwed, and he doesn't like America getting screwed. We've been getting screwed for 3 decades by China. Even if we leave behind the revenue aspect, and the most important attempt at bringing manufacturing back, tariffs are a way for us to stop getting screwed.
One may look up numbers on tariff rates, etc., but what the Chinese do is use their bureaucracy to greatly discourage imports from America. I've written about one example (a mistake by said bureaucracy, but a perfect example anyway) from personal knowledge. You're not going to get far getting the Chinese to admit this, but Trump knows, and the Chinese HATE HATE HATE that the President of the US is on to them. Peak Stupidity supports Trump's tariffs for many reasons, but this reason alone is good enough.
Instead of ranting on though, I will point out more reading from pundits the Peak Stupidity readers (commenters, at least) will know, along with a long debate video. Firstly, let me note that I'd forgotten our post from nearly 7 years ago, Tariffs in American history. Yeah, Ben Stein was in it, as one might guess, but it was just a still picture. Our very basic quick take 7 years back:
Pro Free Trade - If you protect industries, consumers will miss out on better deals, like all the cheap China-made crap, but also American industry will find parts and raw materials from abroad more expensive. With the overseas competition stifled, there is definitely an incentive for American manufacturers to make junkier stuff (think US auto industry pre-1980).(There are links in the original post.). If he hasn't already, the reader may want to read E.H. Hail's post Alfred Eckes on the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930 and its long-lasting civic mythology, along with the important chapter of Alfred Eckes book on tariffs presented therein, or the whole book*, for that matter. Mr. Hail pointed out a Pat Buchanan article, but let me point out another one that we've missed, Did Tariffs Make America Great?. Our commenter "The Alarmist" here has a good post on this matter - Trump to Stock Markets: “Drop Dead!“ on his substack site. I love the title, and Alarmist's very readable and enjoyable essay is pro-Trump. I agree!
Pro Protectionism - American consumers can't buy a whole lot when they don't have good jobs to begin with. As Mr. Buchanan quotes many of the Founders and historic American icons of industry saying, along with what I've been saying for years, the wealth of a country is very related to how much manufacturing it does (vs. service industries, including F.I.R.E. ").They'veWe've also said, just based on the country's security, that essentials for the country's existence and prosperity should be made here.
A couple of go-to pundits for Peak Stupidity and readers are John Derbyshire and, of course, Steve Sailer. The former admitted, in his latest (Zman-hosted now) Radio Derb podcast, regarding where he stands on the issue:
Uh, nowhere very firmly. I don’t know much about Economics and am not ashamed to admit it. In fact I have argued previously in this podcast that Economics is a pseudoscience, not to be taken very seriously.I like the honesty, and the same came from Steve Sailer, to be noted shortly. No, Economics is no science at all, by any definition of science. From the little he did write, Mr. Derbyshire is generally in favor of tariffs and also in favor of what Trump in particular is up to. He excerpted a Trump transcription (that's NOT easy!) Speaking of China:
People took advantage of our country and they ripped us off for a very … for decades. I’ve been thinking about this for decades.Steve Sailer admitted in a recent substack post, Procrastination Rules! that he procrastinated about writing about tariffs because he hasn't though much about the subject. He wrote quite a bit to explain how building back manufacturing is no short-term process. I agree. I understand Mr. Sailer's concern about Trump's flip-floppery on tariffs not helping said long-term process. Trump is very much the opposite of a "long-term, slow-burn getting things done"** guy. OTOH, Trump is really fucking with the Chinese, which to me is a very good thing. Mr. Sailer has a hard time praising Trump for anything.
I’ve been … If you ever saw me on television, I was young like these guys. And, er … Those were the good old days, I’ll tell you, Roger. But I was like these guys — young. And I was talking about it. Nothing, nothing changed and nothing was done about it.
Then I did it; in my first term I did it, and did it well. We took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China — and others — and I started the process.
I have only read about 1/2 the comments under that SteveSailer.net post, a few days back - there are 120 now. I feel I must correct an error written by at least one commenter, that this tariff idea is new to Trump. No, as I wrote up top, and per the clip above, this one IS a long-term concern that Trump has been talking about for many years. Additionally, to correct the error, I'll add that Trump did institute one phase or two of what was to be a multi-phase program of levying tariffs on Chinese goods during his last term. People forget, but Peak Stupidity noted this in praise of Trump-45 at the time.
After writing all that above, I ran out of time to even attempt to continue watching the pro/con tariff debate I present here. I did watch the last 30 minutes or so of it live on ZeroHedge*** the other day and then the first couple of minutes of it on youtube.
Peter Schiff, anti-tariffs here, has been a feature of 2 gold v bitcoin debates here.**** The other, pro-tariff, gentleman is one Spencer Morrison, who, hilariously, makes sure in the introductions that the narrator stops mistaking him for an Economist. I get it. Among this ZH crowd, Steve Sailer (though he majored in Econ), John Derbyshire, and your Peak Stupidity writer(s), as much or little as we write about the subject, Economists themselves don't get no respect!
I gotta get those radio diaries filled out, but next week there will be time for plenty of more on, yeah, one more point on tariffs, more on Trump, Steve Sailer (in a good light), eventually that post on Deflation, and whatever stupidity presents itself. Have a happy Sunday, Peakers. Thanks for reading and writing in.
* Thanks again to Adam Smith for providing a few links the whole book online, which can be found under this post of ours.
** If you can guess to what song that line is a lyric, WITHOUT the internet, you ought to win something, I don't know what... a [REDACTED] album?
*** It's not that wow, live! means much for something like this, but ZH had it up, and after it ended it was - pooof! - gone from the site.
**** The 1st one (with our discussion here) is fun, but you won't learn very much on the pros/cons. The 2nd one is a lot better.
Comments:
The Alarmist
Tuesday - April 15th 2025 6:15AM MST
PS
I guess I'm the Contrarian here, but I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of some of the things I get from China. I sure will miss getting them on the cheap, though.
Read some Upton Sinclair, like The Jungle, to get a feel for what our standards were a century ago.
🕉️
I guess I'm the Contrarian here, but I've been pleasantly surprised with the quality of some of the things I get from China. I sure will miss getting them on the cheap, though.
Read some Upton Sinclair, like The Jungle, to get a feel for what our standards were a century ago.
🕉️
Hail
Monday - April 14th 2025 7:43AM MST
PS
There is a spiritual side to the decline of product quality.
When people were more closely connected to local reputations, AND production-processes, there was a lot more incentive to "make things to last." AND, for what it's worth, Western norms and traditions of fair-play.
People have been talking in this direction since the 19th century, of course; often wrapped up in criticisms of "capitalism" per se.
Anti-capitalism critiques are something Americans traditionally are shy to embrace as such. With the deluge of MADE IN CHINA junk and the decades-long "hollowing out"-of-production phenomenon, which began alarming people at the tail-end of the 20th century (and later began alarming elites, especially by the 2010s), these old criticisms have taken on new meaning.
Western norms and traditions of fair-play are at play. There is a scammer element to Chinese culture and worldview, although a more culturally-sensitive view would render that in differently nuanced terms. The idea is, IF a Chinese can scam someone, it's fair-game and it's really the deceived person's fault for being so gullible. This shocks the Western mind, and many won't even believe it--until they see it in action. The harshly anti-Chinese views of Western people in the 19th century came from raw encounters of this kind.
If Product A sells for $100 and lasts on average 1 year
and Product B sells for $250 but lasts on average 5 years, and consumers need a product like this for regular use, they'll pay $100/year for Product A, or $50/year for Product B. ---- Product B is the better call, but requires a higher up-front cost ($250 vs $100).
Most consumers, for most products, most of the time, cannot make this "call" correctly, given the shifting consumer-scape of products. (You can't rely on your grandfather's advice from his day on what type of Smartphone will last longer for your dollar.)
If the market is flooded with Product-A-like cheap-versions that don't last long (and are a demonstrably WORSE value over time, as sketched-out above), this is a kind of scam perpetrated on the consumer! And this very thing is one important aspect of the China Model.
Back to the "spiritual side":
If I can make money by scamming in some way, should I? would I? The Westerner traditionally says, No. It's not even really a question. I should not scam someone. If there is some fault with my products, it's because of imperfect methods or something or some mistake; it is not a deliberate-scam strategy that exploits market-power (dumping products at low prices to crush competitors; which the ultra-low-cost Chinese mega-retailers are now doing to an Idiocracy-scale degree) or takes advantage of lack of consumer knowledge in a vast, global, faceless-anonymous market.
To the same set of questions and incentives, the Easterner often says: Yes, I am willing to do that.
What the Westerner traditionally wants is excellence. What the Easterner traditionally wants is money. This is where I see the spiritual side. When the Westerner is not able to fulfill his felt-need for excellence, he will spiritually ill-at-ease. He doesn't want a world of cheap-and-disposable stuff of low quality. It's not suited to him. It's the global-marketplace equivalent to life in a cheek-by-jowl Chinatown.
There is a spiritual side to the decline of product quality.
When people were more closely connected to local reputations, AND production-processes, there was a lot more incentive to "make things to last." AND, for what it's worth, Western norms and traditions of fair-play.
People have been talking in this direction since the 19th century, of course; often wrapped up in criticisms of "capitalism" per se.
Anti-capitalism critiques are something Americans traditionally are shy to embrace as such. With the deluge of MADE IN CHINA junk and the decades-long "hollowing out"-of-production phenomenon, which began alarming people at the tail-end of the 20th century (and later began alarming elites, especially by the 2010s), these old criticisms have taken on new meaning.
Western norms and traditions of fair-play are at play. There is a scammer element to Chinese culture and worldview, although a more culturally-sensitive view would render that in differently nuanced terms. The idea is, IF a Chinese can scam someone, it's fair-game and it's really the deceived person's fault for being so gullible. This shocks the Western mind, and many won't even believe it--until they see it in action. The harshly anti-Chinese views of Western people in the 19th century came from raw encounters of this kind.
If Product A sells for $100 and lasts on average 1 year
and Product B sells for $250 but lasts on average 5 years, and consumers need a product like this for regular use, they'll pay $100/year for Product A, or $50/year for Product B. ---- Product B is the better call, but requires a higher up-front cost ($250 vs $100).
Most consumers, for most products, most of the time, cannot make this "call" correctly, given the shifting consumer-scape of products. (You can't rely on your grandfather's advice from his day on what type of Smartphone will last longer for your dollar.)
If the market is flooded with Product-A-like cheap-versions that don't last long (and are a demonstrably WORSE value over time, as sketched-out above), this is a kind of scam perpetrated on the consumer! And this very thing is one important aspect of the China Model.
Back to the "spiritual side":
If I can make money by scamming in some way, should I? would I? The Westerner traditionally says, No. It's not even really a question. I should not scam someone. If there is some fault with my products, it's because of imperfect methods or something or some mistake; it is not a deliberate-scam strategy that exploits market-power (dumping products at low prices to crush competitors; which the ultra-low-cost Chinese mega-retailers are now doing to an Idiocracy-scale degree) or takes advantage of lack of consumer knowledge in a vast, global, faceless-anonymous market.
To the same set of questions and incentives, the Easterner often says: Yes, I am willing to do that.
What the Westerner traditionally wants is excellence. What the Easterner traditionally wants is money. This is where I see the spiritual side. When the Westerner is not able to fulfill his felt-need for excellence, he will spiritually ill-at-ease. He doesn't want a world of cheap-and-disposable stuff of low quality. It's not suited to him. It's the global-marketplace equivalent to life in a cheek-by-jowl Chinatown.
Moderator
Sunday - April 13th 2025 8:01PM MST
PS: I've been watching this debate, readers, through 1 hour 12 mins. so far. This is great! Some people watch guys knock little balls into holes in the grass in Augusta, Georgia. This is so much more entertaining, and if you're not careful, as the man said, you might learn something.
If anyone else has watched, please write in a comment or two.
Alas, I gotta quit for the evening though...
If anyone else has watched, please write in a comment or two.
Alas, I gotta quit for the evening though...
Moderator
Sunday - April 13th 2025 3:26PM MST
PS: Very good, Adam. I hope a few people reading here will take the time to read that book. I enjoyed it.
Peak Stupidity Book Club
Sunday - April 13th 2025 9:47AM MST
PS: Good afternoon, everyone...
Poorly made in China (2.1mb .pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/mpjj9v6j
https://files.catbox.moe/ehdqpj.pdf
Happy Sunday! ☮️
Poorly made in China (2.1mb .pdf)
https://tinyurl.com/mpjj9v6j
https://files.catbox.moe/ehdqpj.pdf
Happy Sunday! ☮️
Moderator
Sunday - April 13th 2025 7:02AM MST
PS: Thank you, M. What I put in my post of a minute ago is what I wrote earlier this morning. The site was hung up a bit - seems a Sunday morning thing with GoDaddy.
Moderator
Sunday - April 13th 2025 7:01AM MST
PS: Let me explain better why I think the Chinese make bad products. The blame falls on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. However, from personal knowledge and then from reading this engrossing book, "Poorly Made in China'*, it falls more on China.
American customers have no choice now for lots of products. Why should the Chinese make any effort now? It's not in them to care very much. The mentality there is a far cry from Japan or Germany.
I've also written that my memory tells me certain China-made products were better 20-25 years ago. It's clothing that I remember most. On this, my speculation is that the Big Biz corps that outsourced this manufacturing saw their profits rise yearly as the outsourcing to much cheaper labor happened. At some points, in their specific industries, that was done.
Now, we know that the corporate boards and stockholder aren't satisfied with just continuously making good money. That profit line must KEEP going higher. So, they would specify cheaper and lower-quality parts for their imported goods, shaving money there. However, once you read that book, you'll see that even for the Americans that tried to import good stuff, the Chinese would underhandedly cheapen the products behind the backs of the Americans to shave off some costs.
The American/Western business model of fairly honest White men making deals with a handshake and keeping their words does not work in China.
*. Reviewed here;
https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=2289
American customers have no choice now for lots of products. Why should the Chinese make any effort now? It's not in them to care very much. The mentality there is a far cry from Japan or Germany.
I've also written that my memory tells me certain China-made products were better 20-25 years ago. It's clothing that I remember most. On this, my speculation is that the Big Biz corps that outsourced this manufacturing saw their profits rise yearly as the outsourcing to much cheaper labor happened. At some points, in their specific industries, that was done.
Now, we know that the corporate boards and stockholder aren't satisfied with just continuously making good money. That profit line must KEEP going higher. So, they would specify cheaper and lower-quality parts for their imported goods, shaving money there. However, once you read that book, you'll see that even for the Americans that tried to import good stuff, the Chinese would underhandedly cheapen the products behind the backs of the Americans to shave off some costs.
The American/Western business model of fairly honest White men making deals with a handshake and keeping their words does not work in China.
*. Reviewed here;
https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=2289
M
Sunday - April 13th 2025 6:02AM MST
PS
Some of the Chinese problem is that they're competing with their own people. They steal ideas and processes from each other too.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004G5Z2A8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
"Poorly Made in China" is that book. There was one story there where the factory had a worker who ended up setting up his own factory after finding out what they did.
Change logos just enough to be distinguishable if you're looking for it.
Also: everybody is looking for some way to do it cheaper. Sure that's what companies do. But there's a difference when it's "Cheaper, but the important thing is that it lasts until you sell it. After it's sold, it's the buyer's problem." Good luck suing the company for half of your shipment sold breaking in transit because the packaging is cheap. You sue in Chinese court, using Chinese lawyers, and at best are biased against the foreigner.
If the company gets a bad reputation, close it and open a new one. The same people are running the new company. Make the same things, using the same cheap process, with a different logo. Reputation isn't worth *anything* if you can do that.
Some of the Chinese problem is that they're competing with their own people. They steal ideas and processes from each other too.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004G5Z2A8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
"Poorly Made in China" is that book. There was one story there where the factory had a worker who ended up setting up his own factory after finding out what they did.
Change logos just enough to be distinguishable if you're looking for it.
Also: everybody is looking for some way to do it cheaper. Sure that's what companies do. But there's a difference when it's "Cheaper, but the important thing is that it lasts until you sell it. After it's sold, it's the buyer's problem." Good luck suing the company for half of your shipment sold breaking in transit because the packaging is cheap. You sue in Chinese court, using Chinese lawyers, and at best are biased against the foreigner.
If the company gets a bad reputation, close it and open a new one. The same people are running the new company. Make the same things, using the same cheap process, with a different logo. Reputation isn't worth *anything* if you can do that.
Moderator
Sunday - April 13th 2025 3:36AM MST
PS: SafeNow, I don't remember that paraphrase as exactly my opinion on this. There are plenty of people who do shop based on price only. As I recall, when there were still American-made products on store shelves along with the Chinese stuff - only a small window of time, as I recall ~ late 1990s through '05 or so* - Americans as a WHOLE obviously did not choose enough American products to support the continued sales. Then, too, China does dumping, pushing prices so low that the cost difference can be stark - people, me included will at times just balk "no way!" at the American products, were there any.
I don't recall having a choice over the last 20 years to buy American. I've written about that.
Lastly, I have written that it's pretty hard to know what is good quality anymore. I'd be glad to pay more for something that will last, but I usually have no idea what that brand would be. (The internet could be helpful on this.)
BTW, I'll post about a great ZeroHedge article about this subject;
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/last-gasp-landfill-economy
Last Gasp Of The Landfill Economy
I think the writer, Charles Hugh Smith (I've always liked this guy) is too optimistic with the "Last Gasp" part, unfortunately. The comments, as I'd expect are a hoot!
* Wal-Mart even had a Buy America program going on. Do you remember that? It didn't go on for very long.
I don't recall having a choice over the last 20 years to buy American. I've written about that.
Lastly, I have written that it's pretty hard to know what is good quality anymore. I'd be glad to pay more for something that will last, but I usually have no idea what that brand would be. (The internet could be helpful on this.)
BTW, I'll post about a great ZeroHedge article about this subject;
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/last-gasp-landfill-economy
Last Gasp Of The Landfill Economy
I think the writer, Charles Hugh Smith (I've always liked this guy) is too optimistic with the "Last Gasp" part, unfortunately. The comments, as I'd expect are a hoot!
* Wal-Mart even had a Buy America program going on. Do you remember that? It didn't go on for very long.
SafeNow
Sunday - April 13th 2025 2:49AM MST
PS
Mr. Moderator, you often express your dissatisfaction with the low quality of Chinese products. We once had an exchange about the low quality. Puzzled, I asked you, why the heck don’t Chinese manufacturers spend a relatively small amount on higher quality, because they would get superlative ratings and their profits would soar; Americans would be happy to pay the somewhat higher price. You replied - - I will paraphrase - - No, Americans are so stupid that they would flee from even a somewhat higher price. I guess that’s it, today. When I was young, TV commercials touted high quality. There was an expectation that people were NOT stupid, and so, if you could convince them that the quality was high, they would choose it.
Mr. Moderator, you often express your dissatisfaction with the low quality of Chinese products. We once had an exchange about the low quality. Puzzled, I asked you, why the heck don’t Chinese manufacturers spend a relatively small amount on higher quality, because they would get superlative ratings and their profits would soar; Americans would be happy to pay the somewhat higher price. You replied - - I will paraphrase - - No, Americans are so stupid that they would flee from even a somewhat higher price. I guess that’s it, today. When I was young, TV commercials touted high quality. There was an expectation that people were NOT stupid, and so, if you could convince them that the quality was high, they would choose it.
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair (5.5mb .pdf)
https://files.catbox.moe/9tup97.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/y5pkf8n2
https://www.mediafire.com/file/0vtql77tvkxruyt/The+Jungle+by+Upton+Sinclair.pdf
Cheers! ☮️