955: Is Trump Right About Tariffs?

Unknown Speaker  0:00  
Music. Instead of

Brian Nichols  0:07  
focusing on winning arguments, we're teaching the basic fundamentals of sales and marketing and how we can use them to win in the world of politics, teaching you how to meet people where they're at on the issues they care about. Welcome to The Brian Nichols Show. Well, hey there, folks. Brian Nichols here in another fun fill episode of The Brian Nichols Show, I am, as always, your humble host joining you from our lovely cardio miracle Studios here in eastern Indiana. The Brian Nichols Show is powered by cardio miracle, our phenomenal studio sponsor, because they are, yes, the best heart health supplement in the world. So if you're trying to lower your resting heart rate, lower that blood pressure, or improve your pump at the gym, stick around. We're gonna talk about cardio miracle more in today's episode. But first, tariffs. Everybody is getting tired of that word. I think tariffs. And with that, you know, I've heard a lot of arguments, both from folks on the right, folks on the left, folks in between. A lot of questions around tariffs. I have my own thought thoughts around tariffs. You know, are they? Are they an overall inherent Good? Are they a tool, or are they something else? Let's dig into that, joining me here today on the show from young of voices. Aiden Grogan, welcome

Speaker 1  1:22  
to The Brian Nichols Show. How you doing? Thank you. Glad to be here. Great to have you on Aiden

Brian Nichols  1:27  
tariffs. That's the That's the name of the game. Everybody's talking tariffs right now. It seems like that should be a new TV show talking tariffs. I'm a big Cowboys fan. I listen to talking cowboys every now and then, talking tariffs. So and today, Aiden, we're going to be digging into, yes, all things tariffs. But before we do that, let's kind of set the stage here. You know, you're obviously joining us from young voices. You have an article that we're going to be talking about today over from real clear markets, which is titled, tariffs won't bring on the golden age of America. So before we dig into things, Aiden, just set the stage here. Who are you? What's your your kind of perspective as we're joining today's conversation and talk to us about tariffs, not bringing us to an American golden age. And then we'll, we'll get rocking and

Speaker 1  2:09  
rolling, sure? Well, as you said, I'm a young voices contributor. I'm also a history PhD student at Liberty University, and I'm the donor communications manager at the American Institute for Economic Research. So we do a lot of research and education on free markets and free trade, which is, of course, quite relevant right now.

Brian Nichols  2:33  
Absolutely is, um, sorry, I was getting my notes pulled up here. Um, absolutely is. And that's exactly why I wanted to have you on the show today, right? So let's set the stage of what happened is we're recording here today on April 5, over this past week, April 2 was what Donald Trump called Liberation Day. Now I heard you over in my good buddy Chris spangels show, and you said Liberation Day. Ah, not so fast. So Aiden, just do us a solid and kind of set the stage here. Why are you against the tariffs? Is it more from a a principled standpoint, is it more of a strategic standpoint? Is it a combination of the two hit us with the kind of like the the starting off point, from your your perspective, sure,

Speaker 1  3:12  
I'm critical of protectionism because it doesn't actually work. It's as simple as that. I used to be a protectionist. I used to be very committed to tariffs because I thought it was a way to bring back manufacturing jobs. I'm from the Midwest. I grew up on the southwest side of Chicago and attended Illinois State University, which is in the heart of Illinois Rust Belt, so I saw many of these dilapidated communities, and I thought that if we have a protectionist or tariff regime, we can bring new life to these communities which were sort of left behind by globalization. The problem, though, is that protectionism doesn't actually protect it doesn't deliver on its promises. In the first Trump administration, Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, which saved about 1000 jobs in steel manufacturing, but ultimately led to the loss of about 75,000 jobs in other industries that purchased steel and aluminum due to the higher prices, which were in part caused by retaliation from China. So ultimately, protectionism does greater harm than good. Also, Barack Obama imposed tariffs on tires, which also culminated in a net loss of jobs in the tire retail sector. So some people might benefit from a tariff, but there will be unintended consequences that ultimately cause a lot more damage,

Brian Nichols  4:44  
see, and I don't think that necessarily, that the promotion of tariffs in this instance are, you know, in the pursuit of creating favorable markets versus unfavorable markets. I think that goes back to being a lever right, a lever to drive behavior. We know economics is all about. You know, incentive structures and driving behaviors. And this is just, you know, one side, I guess, of Yes, tariffs, when you focus on tariffs, there is absolutely inherent harm in tariffs. But I guess then the question turns to, what other levers are out there? Let's look at countries like China, like, I mean, China, they're using state subsidies, they're using forced labor. They're using currency manipulation. So I guess for me, it's we're playing a game of football, right? I'm a Cowboys fan. I know that. You know, there's a lot of folks out there who laugh in my general direction. Probably deserve it, but let's say we're playing the Eagles, right? Everybody's favorite team. I want to know that when we're playing the game that we're playing on the same set of rules, and it seems like, and I'd say it seems like it's inherently obvious that other countries aren't playing by some free market standards, right? And as a libertarian, I want that to be the standard. I want to play a game of football and know that everybody's playing the game on the same set of rules. So help me out here, Aiden, because I see that as an inherent flaw just from the onset, because we're trying to play football and China's trying to play soccer, right, like we're playing two different games, and then we wonder why we're not losing by the game and the rules that are being set by other folks who are playing a completely different game. Does

Speaker 1  6:19  
that make sense? Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. It's important to have free trade with free people to start off. I think reasonable people can agree with that. Now, there's a lot of misconceptions coming out of the Trump administration, as well as the right wing populist media. There's this narrative that the United States is the one idiotic country resolutely committed to free trade, as the rest of the world has very high tariffs. But if you look at the most developed affluent nations and their average tariff rates, you'll find that the United States actually ranks somewhere in the middle. So a country like Poland, which is much more nationalist and collectivist than the United States, actually has a lower average tariff rate. So the United States is not the most free trading nation in the world, as some might lead you to believe. If you listen to what, what's, what's on the airwaves on Fox News or news max right now, you're going to hear a lot of rhetoric about the US manufacturing base being hollowed out, gutted, outsourced. You're going to you're going to hear language about the United States being so committed to free trade as the rest of the world has these high tariffs against us. But those are misconceptions. You'll also hear that the United States doesn't make anything here, nothing at all. We make absolutely nothing in the United States, which is not true either us. Real manufacturing output has continued to grow in recent decades, except for minor disruptions such as well or major disruptions such as the 2008 financial collapse or COVID 19. But we're still a major manufacturing economy. Now, with respect to China, I think it's important that we take national security into consideration. It's important that we have a steel and aluminum and computer chips. Those are vital for our national security, and so you can analyze those on a case by case basis. Free traders going all the way back to Adam Smith, have recognized the vital importance of national security. Adam Smith famously said defense is of much more importance than opulence. So when it comes to the geopolitical threat of China, it's important to bring national security experts and economists together to formulate an effective strategy. But I don't think the way that the Trump administration is proceeding with China is is an effective strategy right now. They've already retaliated against us in the first Trump administration, when tariffs were imposed, China also retaliated against us, and as I mentioned, that that led to a net loss of jobs in the industries that the Trump administration was trying to protect now with with reciprocal tariffs, other countries have indicated they're willing to come to the table. So so for those who are committed to free trade, but but are kind of sympathetic to reciprocal tariffs, they can work in so far as they try to encourage other countries to become more free market and have a more open trade policy. So we can remain hopeful about that, but I don't think it's going to work with regard to China. So you

Brian Nichols  9:29  
say that the quote there Adam Smith defense being more important than opulence, but wouldn't, wouldn't you say that maintaining leverage, especially when it comes to, like, trade, in this case, with adversarial nations like China, for example, right? Like, isn't that kind of a national defense conversation in 2020, 2025, number one and then number two. I guess it just goes back to the the point I made, though, and I'm glad you kind of hit on the fact that reciprocal tariffs could work. But like, I guess that is the goal from. Free Market perspectives. I don't want tariffs. I want a truly, you know, a true playing field where everybody's playing by the same set of rules. And I guess that's the goal. And to say, well, it might not work, I hear that, but relative to what? And then that's where I get stuck as well. Because you look at where we are today, we don't have a libertarian utopia where we've had the ground floor set as a true free market free trade environment. It's not the reality. So if we're going to stick to a libertarian mindset of we want free trade, could this, at the very least be one of those levers we're pulling relative to just sitting on our hands and not doing anything.

Speaker 1  10:46  
Yeah, well, I think, I think the what's most in US national security interest is to have an affluent economy. And I think there's, there's a great body of evidence to suggest that free trading nations are the most affluent nations, and nations with the highest tariffs in general, are the most impoverished, corrupt and and tyrannical countries. Now, depending on our approach to China, really depends on how much of a serious long term threat that we believe China is. I happen to believe that China faces a massive demographic and population crisis that is going to render them ineffective. As far as being a long term geopolitical rival to the United States, fertility rates are declining around the world, and China has a fertility rate of about 1.0 but a lot of the statistics that come out of China are are not credible or not true. So China is going to experience a massive population collapse, which is going to bring to an end the the China facade of this, this strong, durable, menacing economy they have built. So I don't actually think that

Brian Nichols  12:02  
really quick because, and this is where I also get stuck, because I look at that, I hear you, I think you're right,

Unknown Speaker  12:08  
but

Brian Nichols  12:10  
we're seeing right now, the advancement of automation of AI, like, warp speed. I mean, just go back to I was thinking. I was actually talking about this in the coworker the other day. I was like, dude, remember when chat GPT came out in like, 2021 2022 and it was P FM, right? Like pure F and magic. And everybody was like, Look at this. But it was kind of mean. Compare it to today. That was like a kindergartner talking to a college student, right? And you see the difference in that the AI models like just now, five years, four years later. And I just, I think it's fair to argue that in five years from now, we're going to have aI coupled with robotics automation. That's going to make a lot of those issues you're raising up, the fact that there's a lesser number of folks to fill these jobs just I'm going to call it out. I think we're going to see AI automation, robotics fill that void in China as much as they would here. No,

Speaker 1  13:01  
yeah, it's going to happen. But the thing is, robots don't buy things, nor do they pay taxes, so it's not really a long term solution to population decline. Once that deep population hits, there's going to be a failure of productiveness, and there's going to be a serious economic consequences. There's going to be a lot of difficulty in taking care of the elderly population with a much smaller working age population that just doesn't have the tax resources to provide for the elderly. So So China is really headed into this inverted population pyramid problem where you have a substantially larger retirement age population than working age population and automation could sort of delay the the the inevitable with respect to that problem. But it's not, it's not a, it's not a, it's not a solution,

Brian Nichols  13:54  
no, but I sort of stuck there, though, because no robots and aI don't pay taxes, but the companies that own them do right? And I'm going to guarantee that whenever a politician sees a chance to to squeeze some some money out of a rock or a stone, they're going to do it right. So they're going to figure out ways to tax these different new means of productivity, for better or for worse, right? We can almost all guarantee it's going to happen. So I guess I just, I'm still and I'm stuck here Aiden, like I'm stuck on the the arguments against the proposal, again, going back to a true reciprocal tariff mentality, not in the pursuit of we love tariffs. We're using it for protectionism. But rather, we're using tariffs to to bring everybody to an even playing field right to now, reset the market back towards an ideal. I just I don't see a lot of the the worst case, Boogeyman. You know, bogey man. Boogey man, how do you pronounce it? Is it one oh or two OHS? Is bogey bogeyman, yeah, um, which makes me just feel weird to say, because I'm pretty sure as the boogeyman we were growing up. But maybe this is a Mandela Effect. But like when you look at. Of where China is today and where they could go, and then relative to where the United States is today and where we should go. I think everybody agrees that we should be aiming to a freer, more, you know, fair trade environment. But we don't get there by just saying, well, one of the levers we can use is bad relative to the other levers which could be using, you know, international trade bodies, or, you know, negotiating trade practices between ourselves, or entering into arbitrary, you know, free trade agreements that really don't have any teeth to them, to hold the other teams or other, I say teams thing back to the football analogy, but the other countries to what they're supposed to be doing. Like, it just comes down to, in my perspective, we are being, you know, altruistic in saying we we're going to be the shining beacon on the hill. We're going to lead by example. We're going to be good business partners. We should have a low trade barrier to entry, lower all tariffs across the board. And just by doing that, it's going to help and encourage Americans to have a better way of life, and other countries will follow suit. I just, I don't see that altruistic, you know, just like happy mentality going forward and being realized as a positive. When you see, I mean, I live here in rural, rural Indiana, and I see empty warehouses everywhere, because American manufacturing has gone overseas. Now, again, I'm not saying we need to bring all that back, but to not acknowledge that there was a very real pain that's been realized as countries have shipped overseas. I mean, that's by the nature of how expensive it was for them to do business here in America. And then I think, you know, here's a proposal. Let me hear, if you like this, Aiden, what if the Trump administration in pursuit of, you know, bringing reciprocal tariffs to the table with the goal of lowering the trade barriers and making it true and free and fair trade. What if they were to say? And by the way, all corporate manufacturing here in the United States, we're going to have it right, like, let's, let's just, let's make it so it's as business friendly to do business in America as possible. Is that a step in the right direction would it be

Speaker 1  17:01  
to make our economy more effective and competitive, we should be lowering our corporate tax rate. Ireland, for example, has a corporate tax rate of just 12 and a half percent, which has attracted an enormous amount. Who does investment? Now, I'm Irish, and I love to see Ireland develop modern, prosperous society, but when I go to Dublin and I see all these American corporations, I'm thinking, well, they should be stateside. They should be in the United States where they belong. So we can do part of this through, through having a more competitive corporate tax rate. There's some on the new right who say we should actually raise the corporate tax rate, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. Agree,

Brian Nichols  17:39  
by the way, I agree. I don't know. Don't do that. Don't do that. No,

Speaker 1  17:43  
right? But getting back to China, I just don't see starting a trade war with China as an effective solution. And you know, the the Economic Report of the President in march 2019 which was signed by President Trump, said that the tariffs against China did not achieve their intended result, and rather than changing its practices, China announced retaliatory tariffs against the United States, and that wreaked havoc on our economy and led to job losses. So while it may seem that we need to do something. I don't see tariffs really solving the problem, and I think they really can actually undermine our national security by leading to a trade war.

Brian Nichols  18:32  
Hey, really quick aid. Now I have a question to that, like the job losses. Were those losses from the tariffs themselves? Or is that more of exposing the over dependence that America has on these foreign supply chains that the tariffs are simply exposing, which, by the way, I think, if we're going to be completely transparent here, that is the core argument of a lot of these more call them protectionist types of folks, is that for decades, generations, We have outsourced overseas. And, you know, the the job losses you're referring to aren't as a direct result of the tariffs, but rather, it's because we've stretched ourselves too thin domestically in pursuit of expanding a global presence.

Speaker 1  19:15  
So a couple things to unpack there. So the the Federal Reserve Board of Governors did a study on the the Trump tariffs of 2018 and 2019 particularly on steel and aluminum, and there were several channels. So the higher input costs which occurred as a result of the tariffs, which which typically happens when you impose tariffs, you have higher prices. That caused some firms to make important decisions regarding their labor force, and they made cuts. Also the retaliatory tariffs further affected prices and led to even more job losses. Now the tariffs themselves, the protectionist measures, did save some jobs, but because of the higher prices and the retaliation, there was a net loss of jobs. So that's what happened with respect to the. The Trump administration's tariffs in 2018 2019, Now, as for as for this narrative about losing all our manufacturing, it's so important to note the role of technological change in waning manufacturing employment, as I mentioned us, real manufacturing output continues to grow, but manufacturing employment is declining, and that's a consequence of automation, artificial intelligence and information technology. There have been several important studies indicating that actually a minority of the jobs went overseas. One Ball State University study found that during the China shock, approximately 1999 to about 2010 roughly that decade, about 88% of the manufacturing job losses were a consequence of productivity gains through automation, AI and information technology. And only a minority actually went to China, Vietnam, Japan or Mexico. So there's actually a narrative about this that is tremendously flawed. People assume that we don't have any manufacturing here anymore, but that's that's simply not the case, and actually, by imposing tariffs, we are incentivizing more firms to automate more tasks to make up for the higher prices. Is that a bad thing? Well, if, if we want to conserve our manufacturing jobs, and if we're concerned about these communities that have have lost jobs, then it would be a bad thing to to see those jobs lost due to automation. That's a common argument in support of protectionism is that these communities in the Rust Belt have been negatively impacted. They've lost the these these decent jobs that they relied on, and that's caused a whole slew of social problems, which I don't necessarily agree that all these social problems are caused by free trade. I think they owe a lot, much more to the 1960s sexual revolution and the way the family has been restructured than to any economic conditions. But nevertheless, that's the argument, and and many of the the the national conservatives and the protectionist believe that if we simply become a more protectionist country, we can, we can revitalize Americans devotion to all these traditional social norms, and we'll make families great again, so to speak.

Brian Nichols  22:28  
I'm not making that argument, though. I guess that's where I'm stuck, because I keep on getting I'm not saying you're doing this, but this is where, like, on, you know, social media, I see a lot of folks like they'll try to bucketize my I think it's a very libertarian argument, and I hate to even say for tariffs, because that's not the case. It's a libertarian argument in pursuit of an end goal, right, which is a true free market, free and fair trade environment. And you know, just going back to what we were talking about beforehand, like when you go to Ireland, why are you seeing companies going over to Ireland or going over to India or going over to China. I think we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room, Aiden, and that a lot of it was, though, due to cheap labor. I mean, if I'm Nike and I have to make shoes, who am I gonna go and try to hire? I'm gonna hire somebody in America who have to pay a competitive wage benefits, you know, all that and more, versus somebody I can pay over in Bangladesh for 17 cents an hour. Like, it's just, it's, it's very obvious that that did happen, right? And I guess I just, I keep on going back to, are we as a we, in this case, the the free traders who are just vehemently against tariffs across the board? Is it because we're in pursuit of an ideal without acknowledging where we are right now, like what the starting out point is, because that's what it feels like.

Speaker 1  23:47  
I think there are, there are certainly a lot of free traders who are, who are resolutely committed to the ideas of Adam Smith or the ideas of Milton Friedman no matter what, and they will not adapt depending on different geopolitical circumstances. So there is a need to re articulate these arguments in the context of our current geopolitical situation, which,

Brian Nichols  24:07  
by the way, like this is one thing that piece I'm driving me nuts is like, people keep pointing back to the tariffs of, I think it was McKinley in 1898 and then the the holly Smoot tariffs back in the 30s. And like, oh well, we're going to get a recession, we're gonna get a depression. But, like, quite obviously, we're 100 years later, 75 years later. Like, the principles haven't changed, but the context globally has absolutely changed, like our interconnected global society is vastly different than it was 100 years ago. I think that's also something that just keeps on getting ignored.

Speaker 1  24:40  
Right? No, you're definitely right about that. I think that the way the Trump administration is going to proceed with this is they're going to start walking back tariffs as this moves along, because Trump Love him or hate him, he's not out of touch with reality.

Brian Nichols  24:57  
He's a utilitarian I would say yeah for sure. Yeah. And and Ben Shapiro

Speaker 1  25:01  
made this point. And I think Ben Shapiro hit the nail on the head that that he's going to start walking back some of these tariffs. Some of them might achieve their intended result, as far as encouraging countries to come to the table and lower, or ideally eliminate their tariff barriers. And if that succeeds in making the world more open trade and more free market, great if it's used as a negotiation tactic, that is successful. Great I mean, and Trump used the threat of tariffs earlier on in his administration as a form of negotiation to get Colombia, Mexico and Canada to comply with the US on immigration policy. And that was a victory. They came to the table, and they agreed so to in a limited capacity, tariffs can be used as a form of negotiation. I don't, I don't deny that now only time will tell to see how many countries are willing to lower their tariff barriers, or how many countries are willing to actually just retaliate against us, we will see. I don't have a whole lot of optimism in it. I also think the way that the administration has gone about calculating the reciprocal tariff rates,

Brian Nichols  26:09  
agree, agreed, nonsense, absolute nonsense. It's not based on trade deficits. They're making shit up. Yeah, right.

Speaker 1  26:14  
So for example, Brazil, which has high tariffs, and Singapore, which has effectively no tariffs, have been hit with the same tariff rate of 10% and we're actually running trade surpluses with both of those countries. So the administration's thinking there seems to be, let's impose a 10% tariff,

Brian Nichols  26:31  
because why not? Yep, and by the way, like that's where I say, No, no, do not do that. Do not do tariffs. For the sake of tariffs. Sake. That work sure does tariffs for the sake of tariff sake, yeah. But like that is, for me, the ultimate, like the real, I mean, the end goal for me is what I care about, Is the goal to put tariffs in just to say we want to create a protection estate. And, you know, Trump loves tariffs. Or is it that tariffs are a tool? They're a lever to pull during negotiation tactic. I err much more on the side of its negotiation tactic. And listen like I'm a sales executive by trade. I work in the B to B space constantly. We're negotiating daily with competitors, with trying to sell new products or services. And you always start at the opposite ends of the spectrum, right? Like somebody's asking for everything and somebody's trying to give nothing, right? And you end up meeting somewhere in the middle. And just from a true business standpoint, I look at this as that's what we should use tariffs for, as a negotiation tactic in pursuit of a good outcome, both for us and consequently for the person engaging in the arrangement, right? And that is what a positive negotiation looks like. And in my world, again, if we keep going back to if the goal is a true free market, free and fair trade environment, where we're all playing by the same set of rules, so we know exactly like we can actually let this free trade thing work. I'm that's yes enthusiastically, yes, but I just need to say this again, for all the Libertarians out there who are giving me slings and arrows, I don't like tariffs as a principled standpoint. Tariffs are bad. They're attacks on the consumer. They disrupt markets, they create uncertainty in the in the economy, they cause job losses. Like, yes, that. I know that. I get that, but it's all from a strategic standpoint that I'm looking at this. So help me out here. Aiden, I want you to, I'm gonna ask you to do something for me. Steel man, my argument, right? Like, what would you say would be the best outcome for these tariffs? Is it going to be, you know, we see, you know, a reversion back towards a true free and fair trade. Is it, you know, that America becomes stronger economically, as well as other countries, or a combination of the two? What do you think?

Speaker 1  28:58  
I think the best case scenario is, as you said, as sort of using these tariffs as a means to an end. If they bring countries to the table and they agree to significantly lower or eliminate their tariff barriers, that's a win for the global economy. That's a win for the United States. But if countries retaliate, that's that's a that's going to be a major problem. I also think the tariffs that were imposed, the reciprocal tariffs, are absolutely outrageous, and they're completely disconnected from reality, as as we've discussed. But my concern is that the administration does not view tariffs as simply a negotiation tactic. Donald Trump is a true believer in tariffs. He believes that tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language, he believes terrorists will bring about the golden age of America. So the Liberation Day tariffs have revealed that Donald Trump truly intended to do this all along. He's been talking about tariffs since the 1980s and it's not just a negotiation tactic. He is He is trying to upend the. Entire trade status quo, because he believes that this is a way to make America wealthy again, as if we're not already an extremely wealthy society.

Brian Nichols  30:12  
I And by the way, I just want to set the stage to, I hate the Bluster of like America is some third world country. Like, that's not the case. And obviously we are far better as a country where we are today, versus 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago. And I would also argue that, on top of the economic side of things, why we're more successful. One cannot pretend also that, you know, in the post 1945 world that America as the leading superpower in the world. I mean, yes, with Russia up until the 90s and then America as that sole superpower, right? Like that definitely plays a role, because you want to make sure, as a foreign country that your best buddies are, at the very minimum, not hated by the biggest guy in the block. So I do think that that also plays a role. And again, going back to the issues of the holly Smoot tariffs back in the 30s, the McKinley tariffs back in the 1890s like that, right there gets ignored. America was not the global superpower back then. We did not have the largest economy in the world, bar none. We did not have intertwined relationships with, dare I say, almost every single country in the world. So the context of America, just as it is to what we had in the past, is vastly different. Now, I do not argue, though, that that does not mean that the impacts or the realities of tariffs seemingly disappears or changes. I agree. I just think, you know, again, it's going back to the context of the game. Yes, you could have a high school team and a NFL team play each other by the same set of rules, but I'm gonna just tell you right now, the NFL team is probably gonna do a little bit better because, you know, they're a bunch of 300 pound dudes who are actually grown men playing a sport where you're meant to physically impose yourself on another team, and the other is a bunch of 15 to 18 year olds, you know, hopefully just figuring out how to, you know, play football like it's going to be a very different outcome. And where America is. We were kind of the high school kid back in the day, and now we are the NFL player. Now I do fear that we're, you know, we're getting a little older, right? We're in our mid 30s as a country. We're starting to maybe look at retirement, I hope not. But like that is almost, you know, I would say, an inevitable outcome of the cycle of our economic, you know, world is that ebbs and flows happen. And right now, I think we're in a very big ebb. Is that, is that the terminology, I guess, we're in a big moment of transition, of change, both in terms of America as a country, but also the way that America is connecting itself in the the economic, you know, the economic realities of the world. So I guess you know, for my final thoughts, Aiden, I think I just, I want to make sure I make it crystal clear, tariffs are bad. Tariffs inherently are bad for a principled standpoint, from an outcomes perspective, they are almost inherently going to cause negative outcomes. However, in my vision, if they are in pursuit of a true like Resetting the Stage, creating a free and fair market where we can all enter in together, play the same game, and make sure one team isn't using the referees to artificially change the benefit in their favor. I'm on board. But with that being said, I agree 1,000% if Trump is going in, as you know, tariffs are a beautiful word. They're the biggest and beautifulest thing, right next to his ego, then that's a big red flag. And I think any Republican like a Rand Paul, for example, out on the US Senate should rightfully stand up and say, Absolutely not and fight back. And by the way, like to all the folks who are freaking out about Trump having this power. Yes, I agree, which is why we shouldn't have given it to FDR back in the 30s. So the fact that we see some folks in the US Senate, like Rand Paul right now, standing up and saying, Hey, Congress, let's reclaim our ability to tax and spend, right versus just delegating it to a random person who's going to become President of the United States, like, let's do that. So I think, you know, there could be positives, both foreign and domestic, here, from this, this Trump trade, trade war, tariff proposals. Call it what you will. That's my final thoughts. Aid and bring us home. What are your thoughts and where can folks go ahead and learn more if they want to, to, you know, get a little bit more educated when it comes to tariffs and trade policy, from yours truly. Right?

Speaker 1  34:20  
So I'd like to say I was asked on the Chris Bengal podcast, if I were president, what would I do with regard to tariffs? And I said, Well, I would eliminate most tariffs and keep tariffs in place, possibly to defend national security. But I think a more effective answer, going off what you were just saying, is that if I were president, I wouldn't be setting trade policy, because that is not the responsibility of the executive. Under the United States Constitution, Congress has the authority to levy taxes, including tariffs, but Congress has willingly abdicated that responsibility to the executive, and we currently have a president who is all too happy to take on that responsibility. So I think it's important for a congressional committee to simplify and reform the US Tariff Schedule, which is over 4000 pages long. People think that the President simply signs a piece of paper and voila, the tariff is implemented. But having a tariff regime requires a massive government bureaucracy, including both the US Trade Commission and the US customs and border enforcement, to write the Tariff Schedule, publish the Tariff Schedule, interpret the Tariff Schedule, and implement the Tariff Schedule. So if conservatives want to reign in the power of the federal government and shrink the federal bureaucracy they ought to support taking measures to reform the US Tariff Schedule, and that starts with eliminating many tariffs as much as possible. So my final thoughts are that protectionism does not protect ultimately, it results in greater harm than good. I think the evidence is very clear now. If, if reciprocal tariffs can succeed in making other countries more free market and more open trade, then that would be a positive development. I don't think that slapping aggressive tariffs against China is going to lead to any positive outcomes in the first Trump administration, the tariffs did not work, as was said in the March 2019, Economic Report of the President. But thankfully, China will probably not be a long term geopolitical rival to the United States because of their demographic crisis. Unlike the United States, they're not willing to welcome newcomers into their country, to prop up their economy. The United States is and we have benefited greatly from immigration throughout our history, and I think in the long run, if the United States remains committed to to free markets and free trade, and we preserve our constitutional order, and we perhaps get things figured out in the culture so that we're not always at each other's throats. And we can have some semblance of normal normalcy. We can have a second American century, and we can, we can. We can pave the way toward a more free, prosperous and and safer future. Aiden,

Brian Nichols  37:27  
it's been an absolute pleasure having you on the show, and by the way, I really appreciate that we were able to have a nice back and forth, and dare I say, found some common ground, which doesn't really happen in today's political discourse. So I appreciate you taking some time, bringing your insights here to The Brian Nichols Show, and by Nichols show. And by the way, folks, if you enjoyed hearing aid and here on the show, you can go ahead and check out more of Aiden's work over at Real Clear markets. Link in the show notes Aiden work. And folks, go ahead and reach out to you if you want to continue the conversation after we wrap up today. Yeah,

Speaker 1  37:55  
you can follow me on x at Aiden Grogan. Also, you can visit the American Institute for Economic Research at AI er.org or the daily economy.org and I have several articles posted there, not as much about tariffs, about some other other relevant issues. If people are interested in taking a look at those good

Brian Nichols  38:14  
stuff. Aiden, well, hey, thanks for hopping on the show today. And folks, by the way, thank you for joining the show. I know there's a very, you know, hot topic right now, so the fact that we were able to kind of paint the picture both from my perspective, Aiden's perspective, and find both some common ground, and I think, you know, some, some actual positive outcomes that could come both from using tariffs, but doing so in a way I think I outlined, but to Aiden's point, not as a mean or not As the end goal itself, right? Protectionism, no bueno. We want free, fair, open markets. With that being said, Please go ahead, if you have not yet, hit the subscribe button here for The Brian Nichols Show. Do so right now, because, yes, we have at least two episodes airing every single week, Monday nights and Friday nights over on YouTube, on rumble, on x and on Facebook, live stream at 9pm eastern we usually start the feed around 830 or so. So go ahead check that out and make sure you hit your subscribe button soon as a single time we go live. Or if you like to take your podcast on the go, like yours truly, head over to your favorite podcast platform, whether that's podcast attic, Spotify, YouTube, music, Apple podcasts, wherever it is you can find The Brian Nichols Show, and that is, by the way, the only place you can find all 950 other episodes of the program, where, yes, you will hear yours truly arguing that tariffs are attacks, and I've been saying that for at least seven years. So if you want to go back and check out all the episodes here for The Brian Nichols Show, here are past arguments. So you know, in fact, that I am not a grifter. I'm not just trying to tout whatever Trump is saying of the day. You can actually hear my arguments. Understand how I've gotten to where I am today. Please go back and check out those episodes, and, of course, head down below into the comments. Let us know your thoughts. Do you like tariffs? Do you think tariffs are the worst thing ever? Battle it out, but please be respectful. And with that being said, I. Brian Nichols, signing off here on The Brian Nichols Show for Aiden Grogan. We'll see you next time bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai