John Cassidy

Peter Robinson Is it Bannon or Besson, I guess it would be the... Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary. Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary now is the sort of, you know, the representative of Wall Street, although he hasn't been doing, until recently, he wasn't doing a great job even defending Wall Street's interests. Peter Robinson I think Trump is always going to end up straddling the two.

Peter Robinson Is it Bannon or Besson, I guess it would be the... Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary. Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary now is the sort of, you know, the representative of Wall Street, although he hasn't been doing, until recently, he wasn't doing a great job even defending Wall Street's interests. Peter Robinson I think Trump is always going to end up straddling the two.

I think he emotionally and instinctually is very much on the Bannon ultra-protectionism, economic nationalism side of things. But I think as we've seen in the last few weeks with the whole tariff fiasco, There isn't a political coalition inside the Republican Party to support that over the long term. And Trump himself is not willing to take the political heat that comes along with that.

I think he emotionally and instinctually is very much on the Bannon ultra-protectionism, economic nationalism side of things. But I think as we've seen in the last few weeks with the whole tariff fiasco, There isn't a political coalition inside the Republican Party to support that over the long term. And Trump himself is not willing to take the political heat that comes along with that.

Once the stock market starts crashing or falling sharply, once the bankers start calling up and saying, Mr. President, the bond market's going berserk, you have to do something. Once the opinion poll numbers start falling, he backs off.

Once the stock market starts crashing or falling sharply, once the bankers start calling up and saying, Mr. President, the bond market's going berserk, you have to do something. Once the opinion poll numbers start falling, he backs off.

Right. I'm afraid it looks like to me we're going, we're sort of condemned to just continuing chaos with him sort of rotating between the two wings. And I think all we can, all we guaranteed is more instability and chaos.

Right. I'm afraid it looks like to me we're going, we're sort of condemned to just continuing chaos with him sort of rotating between the two wings. And I think all we can, all we guaranteed is more instability and chaos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, that's actually a pretty complicated question. Most of the book which I've written about is industrial capitalism. And we do have a start date for that. It's usually dated to about 1770 in England in the cotton industry, where a series of inventions led to the rise of the factory system. Now, that arose on top of another system of capitalism, which was called mercantile capitalism.

Yeah, I mean, that's actually a pretty complicated question. Most of the book which I've written about is industrial capitalism. And we do have a start date for that. It's usually dated to about 1770 in England in the cotton industry, where a series of inventions led to the rise of the factory system. Now, that arose on top of another system of capitalism, which was called mercantile capitalism.

What's the difference? Well, it's actually very timely. Prior to Adam Smith and prior to 1770, The government and the economy were pretty much intertwined a bit like they are now under Trump. Protectionism was the order of the day. I mean, Britain and Holland were the sort of empires in the 17th and 18th centuries. And they fought wars over it.

What's the difference? Well, it's actually very timely. Prior to Adam Smith and prior to 1770, The government and the economy were pretty much intertwined a bit like they are now under Trump. Protectionism was the order of the day. I mean, Britain and Holland were the sort of empires in the 17th and 18th centuries. And they fought wars over it.

They basically were competing for the colonial trade, the Spice Islands, England. in what is now Indonesia, the trade in India, cottons, all sorts of goods came from the East.

They basically were competing for the colonial trade, the Spice Islands, England. in what is now Indonesia, the trade in India, cottons, all sorts of goods came from the East.

Right, right. Now, there's a bit of a conceit there because, of course, you know, Adam Smith is the hero to a lot of capitalists and conservatives. I remember when I used to be a correspondent in Washington covering the White House in the late 80s, people used to walk, the Reaganites all walked around with their Adam Smith pins on. Right. Trump people wouldn't do that? I don't think so.

Right, right. Now, there's a bit of a conceit there because, of course, you know, Adam Smith is the hero to a lot of capitalists and conservatives. I remember when I used to be a correspondent in Washington covering the White House in the late 80s, people used to walk, the Reaganites all walked around with their Adam Smith pins on. Right. Trump people wouldn't do that? I don't think so.

Not most of them. I mean, they reject some of the – you know, protectionism is – Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations to critique the mercantile system that we just mentioned and basically defend free trade. He said that protectionism was harmful. It led to corruption. He had these huge corrupt companies like the East India Company, which was actually bailed out by the British government. So –

Not most of them. I mean, they reject some of the – you know, protectionism is – Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations to critique the mercantile system that we just mentioned and basically defend free trade. He said that protectionism was harmful. It led to corruption. He had these huge corrupt companies like the East India Company, which was actually bailed out by the British government. So –

In his time, Adam Smith was a critic of the existing form of capitalism at the time, mercantile capitalism.

In his time, Adam Smith was a critic of the existing form of capitalism at the time, mercantile capitalism.

No, no, it's a very good question. Number one, he said that, you know, we depend on other people for our livelihoods. Basically, you know, you depend on the butcher to provide you with food. You depend on the tailor to, you know, to clothe you, etc. And he said the market is this mechanism which sort of coordinates all these different forms of economic activity.

No, no, it's a very good question. Number one, he said that, you know, we depend on other people for our livelihoods. Basically, you know, you depend on the butcher to provide you with food. You depend on the tailor to, you know, to clothe you, etc. And he said the market is this mechanism which sort of coordinates all these different forms of economic activity.

And if there's competition, also fairly because things sell for pretty much the cost of producing them with a little profit margin. But, you know, Adam Smith didn't have Google and, you know, sort of Amazon.com to contend with.

And if there's competition, also fairly because things sell for pretty much the cost of producing them with a little profit margin. But, you know, Adam Smith didn't have Google and, you know, sort of Amazon.com to contend with.

No, exactly. He viewed the great colonial companies, they were actual monopolies. They had monopoly grants from the government. A lot of government ministers invested in the East India Company, so it was sort of crony capitalism. It wasn't, again, very contemporary. At the moment, the monopoly aspect is front and center.

No, exactly. He viewed the great colonial companies, they were actual monopolies. They had monopoly grants from the government. A lot of government ministers invested in the East India Company, so it was sort of crony capitalism. It wasn't, again, very contemporary. At the moment, the monopoly aspect is front and center.

At some points in the 2008 crisis, this instability question was front and center. That was front and center when Marx and Engels were around thinking that financial blowups in New York were going to end capitalism.

At some points in the 2008 crisis, this instability question was front and center. That was front and center when Marx and Engels were around thinking that financial blowups in New York were going to end capitalism.

I take two things from them, basic things. Number one, you know, the Communist Manifesto was the first book about globalization. You know, they have these great... ringing phrases about the bourgeois going to the ends of the earth and, you know, destroy every all that is holy is profane. It's a global system which sort of rips up everything in its path.

I take two things from them, basic things. Number one, you know, the Communist Manifesto was the first book about globalization. You know, they have these great... ringing phrases about the bourgeois going to the ends of the earth and, you know, destroy every all that is holy is profane. It's a global system which sort of rips up everything in its path.

And, you know, I think that is a very profound and correct analysis. The Marxism, if you boil it down to one sentence, classical Marxism, is that the most important divide in society is between the people who own property and the people who don't. Ownership of property is dominated by the capitalists, especially industrial capital. Workers, the only thing they have to sell is their labor.

And, you know, I think that is a very profound and correct analysis. The Marxism, if you boil it down to one sentence, classical Marxism, is that the most important divide in society is between the people who own property and the people who don't. Ownership of property is dominated by the capitalists, especially industrial capital. Workers, the only thing they have to sell is their labor.

They have nothing to lose but their chains in the famous phrase.

They have nothing to lose but their chains in the famous phrase.

Well, I think what's happened is, you know, capitalism itself has, you know, put its worst face forward in the last 20 or 30 years through capitalism. The growth of huge monopolies, which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability.

Well, I think what's happened is, you know, capitalism itself has, you know, put its worst face forward in the last 20 or 30 years through capitalism. The growth of huge monopolies, which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability.

And young people, they look through the capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.

And young people, they look through the capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.

Bernie always calls himself a socialist. But his view of socialism, unless I'm very much mistaken, I've interviewed him a lot of times, I haven't seen him recommending socialism. of the means of production, what Bernie's in favor of, higher taxes on the rich, control over monopolies, public health care, public education. That to me is Keynesian social democracy in the European context anyway.

Bernie always calls himself a socialist. But his view of socialism, unless I'm very much mistaken, I've interviewed him a lot of times, I haven't seen him recommending socialism. of the means of production, what Bernie's in favor of, higher taxes on the rich, control over monopolies, public health care, public education. That to me is Keynesian social democracy in the European context anyway.

But in the US, there's always been such a sort of mythology surrounding the... The free market and the sort of small businessman.

But in the US, there's always been such a sort of mythology surrounding the... The free market and the sort of small businessman.

To some extent, the American economy for a long time did live up to that. There was the idea in the U.S. there was more social mobility in the U.S. than there was in Europe. And people really did think that with hard work they could get ahead and do well for themselves. I remember when I first came to the U.S.

To some extent, the American economy for a long time did live up to that. There was the idea in the U.S. there was more social mobility in the U.S. than there was in Europe. And people really did think that with hard work they could get ahead and do well for themselves. I remember when I first came to the U.S.

and I realized that quite a lot of sort of working class, what you'd call middle class people, have second homes. There were all these modest cottages out in Montauk where – What I would call working class people went for the summer. Now, of course, they can't afford it now, but now we're talking 40, 30, 40 years ago.

and I realized that quite a lot of sort of working class, what you'd call middle class people, have second homes. There were all these modest cottages out in Montauk where – What I would call working class people went for the summer. Now, of course, they can't afford it now, but now we're talking 40, 30, 40 years ago.

So I think, you know, there was some material basis for the American idea that, you know, there was American exceptionalism. This was a land of opportunity. And obviously a lot of people still believe that, especially a lot of immigrants. The more cynical sort of leftist take on it would be that, well, of course, because it's always been manufactured consent.

So I think, you know, there was some material basis for the American idea that, you know, there was American exceptionalism. This was a land of opportunity. And obviously a lot of people still believe that, especially a lot of immigrants. The more cynical sort of leftist take on it would be that, well, of course, because it's always been manufactured consent.

America's always been dominated by the capitalists. They've always owned all the media. There's never been a proper left-wing movement here to take them on. So, I've got a bit of sympathy for that. I've got a bit of sympathy for both views on that. I'm sort of agnostic as to which one is sort of wins. I mean, I grew up in the sort of British, English, British Keynesian tradition.

America's always been dominated by the capitalists. They've always owned all the media. There's never been a proper left-wing movement here to take them on. So, I've got a bit of sympathy for that. I've got a bit of sympathy for both views on that. I'm sort of agnostic as to which one is sort of wins. I mean, I grew up in the sort of British, English, British Keynesian tradition.

John Maynard Keynes.

John Maynard Keynes.

Keynesian to me means, the phrase I use in the book is managed capitalism. It's a capitalist system, but you manage it in various ways. Number one, the original crux of Keynesianism, you need the government to boost demand in times of slumps. So Keynesian stimulus policies. But it's not just that. Keynesianism also involved capitalism.

Keynesian to me means, the phrase I use in the book is managed capitalism. It's a capitalist system, but you manage it in various ways. Number one, the original crux of Keynesianism, you need the government to boost demand in times of slumps. So Keynesian stimulus policies. But it's not just that. Keynesianism also involved capitalism.

a whole series of sort of attempts to manage the financial sector, for example. It was a social bargain, basically. The capitalists were allowed to continue to own companies. There's still quite a lot of inequality. But in return, there were this whole set of social guarantees on employment insurance, National Health Service, which Bismarck started first of all, but then was put into effect.

a whole series of sort of attempts to manage the financial sector, for example. It was a social bargain, basically. The capitalists were allowed to continue to own companies. There's still quite a lot of inequality. But in return, there were this whole set of social guarantees on employment insurance, National Health Service, which Bismarck started first of all, but then was put into effect.

But you're describing as more European than American. That is. But even in the U.S., even in the U.S., The New Deal was a form of managed capitalism. The reason why I've become more sympathetic to the Marxist or ultra-left view in less than 30 years or so is because that managed capitalism is basically disintegrated, not completely disintegrated, but it's been massively on the defensive.

But you're describing as more European than American. That is. But even in the U.S., even in the U.S., The New Deal was a form of managed capitalism. The reason why I've become more sympathetic to the Marxist or ultra-left view in less than 30 years or so is because that managed capitalism is basically disintegrated, not completely disintegrated, but it's been massively on the defensive.

Yeah, I mean, there's a whole... The car worker in Detroit if he's put on a level playing field with the car worker in India or China who earns, you know, a tenth of the salary, really can't compete. Now, in the car industry, governments have always intervened. The car industry is always seen as too important to leave to the market. But, you know, the clothing industry, for example,

Yeah, I mean, there's a whole... The car worker in Detroit if he's put on a level playing field with the car worker in India or China who earns, you know, a tenth of the salary, really can't compete. Now, in the car industry, governments have always intervened. The car industry is always seen as too important to leave to the market. But, you know, the clothing industry, for example,

US used to have a huge textile industry that basically went away in the 80s and 90s. And then China came along, the China shock in the early 00s. And that was, you know, that's basically an unprecedented shock. And economists, a lot of American economists, you know, took a long time to recognize that.

US used to have a huge textile industry that basically went away in the 80s and 90s. And then China came along, the China shock in the early 00s. And that was, you know, that's basically an unprecedented shock. And economists, a lot of American economists, you know, took a long time to recognize that.

But even the people who supported unrestricted free trade, I think now recognize that the China shock, you know, was huge and did a lot of damage there. to industrial areas and, you know, has given a boost to populism, including Trumpian populism.

But even the people who supported unrestricted free trade, I think now recognize that the China shock, you know, was huge and did a lot of damage there. to industrial areas and, you know, has given a boost to populism, including Trumpian populism.

So the man himself, why is he so anti-free trade and pro-protection? It seems to go back to the 80s in Japan and when Japanese car companies were first coming in here. I think he just sees it in terms of a sort of businessman that... you know, we're giving them our valuable markets and that's always bad. You know, it's like letting a rival casino set up next to his. He shouldn't be allowed.

So the man himself, why is he so anti-free trade and pro-protection? It seems to go back to the 80s in Japan and when Japanese car companies were first coming in here. I think he just sees it in terms of a sort of businessman that... you know, we're giving them our valuable markets and that's always bad. You know, it's like letting a rival casino set up next to his. He shouldn't be allowed.

Beyond him, there's always been this debate about, you know, how far protectionism is, um, Justified. I mean, America in its early decade, century, was a protectionist country. The argument is that when you don't have an industry and you're trying to build it up, you are justified in providing temporary protection for yourself. That doesn't justify slapping tariffs on everything.

Beyond him, there's always been this debate about, you know, how far protectionism is, um, Justified. I mean, America in its early decade, century, was a protectionist country. The argument is that when you don't have an industry and you're trying to build it up, you are justified in providing temporary protection for yourself. That doesn't justify slapping tariffs on everything.

Trump's argument seems to be that all trade is bad. He's not just saying, you know, we have to counter unfair trade or we have to defend our infant industries such as they are.

Trump's argument seems to be that all trade is bad. He's not just saying, you know, we have to counter unfair trade or we have to defend our infant industries such as they are.

No, no. I mean, that was the basis of his... It's just emotional. It seems to be. It's instinctual, I would say, on his part.

No, no. I mean, that was the basis of his... It's just emotional. It seems to be. It's instinctual, I would say, on his part.

Even though the MAGA movement... portrays itself as you know a movement for workers and a lot of the foot soldiers are you know around the country um it's still a republican party and a republican party is still a party of business

Even though the MAGA movement... portrays itself as you know a movement for workers and a lot of the foot soldiers are you know around the country um it's still a republican party and a republican party is still a party of business

And I didn't think it was going to be sustainable to have a Republican government introducing blanket tariffs because it damages so many businesses and the markets are going to hate it. I think he thought he could take some pain, but when it came to it, it didn't. I mean, that's the great irony here. The Chinese have shown that, you know, they're willing to take more pain than we are.

And I didn't think it was going to be sustainable to have a Republican government introducing blanket tariffs because it damages so many businesses and the markets are going to hate it. I think he thought he could take some pain, but when it came to it, it didn't. I mean, that's the great irony here. The Chinese have shown that, you know, they're willing to take more pain than we are.

they can withstand a tariff war because they're a single-party totalitarian state.

they can withstand a tariff war because they're a single-party totalitarian state.

Public opinion is not particularly highly rated. And Xi doesn't really care about the stock market that much either. If Trump is going to tariff all America's major trading partners, this gives China an opportunity to sort of make... you know, in outreaches to Europe and Asia and the global south and sort of replace the US in various parts of the world.

Public opinion is not particularly highly rated. And Xi doesn't really care about the stock market that much either. If Trump is going to tariff all America's major trading partners, this gives China an opportunity to sort of make... you know, in outreaches to Europe and Asia and the global south and sort of replace the US in various parts of the world.

Peter Robinson Is it Bannon or Besson, I guess it would be the... Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary. Peter Robinson The Treasury Secretary now is the sort of, you know, the representative of Wall Street, although he hasn't been doing, until recently, he wasn't doing a great job even defending Wall Street's interests. Peter Robinson I think Trump is always going to end up straddling the two.

I think he emotionally and instinctually is very much on the Bannon ultra-protectionism, economic nationalism side of things. But I think as we've seen in the last few weeks with the whole tariff fiasco, There isn't a political coalition inside the Republican Party to support that over the long term. And Trump himself is not willing to take the political heat that comes along with that.

Once the stock market starts crashing or falling sharply, once the bankers start calling up and saying, Mr. President, the bond market's going berserk, you have to do something. Once the opinion poll numbers start falling, he backs off.

Right. I'm afraid it looks like to me we're going, we're sort of condemned to just continuing chaos with him sort of rotating between the two wings. And I think all we can, all we guaranteed is more instability and chaos.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, that's actually a pretty complicated question. Most of the book which I've written about is industrial capitalism. And we do have a start date for that. It's usually dated to about 1770 in England in the cotton industry, where a series of inventions led to the rise of the factory system. Now, that arose on top of another system of capitalism, which was called mercantile capitalism.

What's the difference? Well, it's actually very timely. Prior to Adam Smith and prior to 1770, The government and the economy were pretty much intertwined a bit like they are now under Trump. Protectionism was the order of the day. I mean, Britain and Holland were the sort of empires in the 17th and 18th centuries. And they fought wars over it.

They basically were competing for the colonial trade, the Spice Islands, England. in what is now Indonesia, the trade in India, cottons, all sorts of goods came from the East.

Right, right. Now, there's a bit of a conceit there because, of course, you know, Adam Smith is the hero to a lot of capitalists and conservatives. I remember when I used to be a correspondent in Washington covering the White House in the late 80s, people used to walk, the Reaganites all walked around with their Adam Smith pins on. Right. Trump people wouldn't do that? I don't think so.

Not most of them. I mean, they reject some of the – you know, protectionism is – Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations to critique the mercantile system that we just mentioned and basically defend free trade. He said that protectionism was harmful. It led to corruption. He had these huge corrupt companies like the East India Company, which was actually bailed out by the British government. So –

In his time, Adam Smith was a critic of the existing form of capitalism at the time, mercantile capitalism.

No, no, it's a very good question. Number one, he said that, you know, we depend on other people for our livelihoods. Basically, you know, you depend on the butcher to provide you with food. You depend on the tailor to, you know, to clothe you, etc. And he said the market is this mechanism which sort of coordinates all these different forms of economic activity.

And if there's competition, also fairly because things sell for pretty much the cost of producing them with a little profit margin. But, you know, Adam Smith didn't have Google and, you know, sort of Amazon.com to contend with.

No, exactly. He viewed the great colonial companies, they were actual monopolies. They had monopoly grants from the government. A lot of government ministers invested in the East India Company, so it was sort of crony capitalism. It wasn't, again, very contemporary. At the moment, the monopoly aspect is front and center.

At some points in the 2008 crisis, this instability question was front and center. That was front and center when Marx and Engels were around thinking that financial blowups in New York were going to end capitalism.

I take two things from them, basic things. Number one, you know, the Communist Manifesto was the first book about globalization. You know, they have these great... ringing phrases about the bourgeois going to the ends of the earth and, you know, destroy every all that is holy is profane. It's a global system which sort of rips up everything in its path.

And, you know, I think that is a very profound and correct analysis. The Marxism, if you boil it down to one sentence, classical Marxism, is that the most important divide in society is between the people who own property and the people who don't. Ownership of property is dominated by the capitalists, especially industrial capital. Workers, the only thing they have to sell is their labor.

They have nothing to lose but their chains in the famous phrase.

Well, I think what's happened is, you know, capitalism itself has, you know, put its worst face forward in the last 20 or 30 years through capitalism. The growth of huge monopolies, which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability.

And young people, they look through the capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.

Bernie always calls himself a socialist. But his view of socialism, unless I'm very much mistaken, I've interviewed him a lot of times, I haven't seen him recommending socialism. of the means of production, what Bernie's in favor of, higher taxes on the rich, control over monopolies, public health care, public education. That to me is Keynesian social democracy in the European context anyway.

But in the US, there's always been such a sort of mythology surrounding the... The free market and the sort of small businessman.

To some extent, the American economy for a long time did live up to that. There was the idea in the U.S. there was more social mobility in the U.S. than there was in Europe. And people really did think that with hard work they could get ahead and do well for themselves. I remember when I first came to the U.S.

and I realized that quite a lot of sort of working class, what you'd call middle class people, have second homes. There were all these modest cottages out in Montauk where – What I would call working class people went for the summer. Now, of course, they can't afford it now, but now we're talking 40, 30, 40 years ago.

So I think, you know, there was some material basis for the American idea that, you know, there was American exceptionalism. This was a land of opportunity. And obviously a lot of people still believe that, especially a lot of immigrants. The more cynical sort of leftist take on it would be that, well, of course, because it's always been manufactured consent.

America's always been dominated by the capitalists. They've always owned all the media. There's never been a proper left-wing movement here to take them on. So, I've got a bit of sympathy for that. I've got a bit of sympathy for both views on that. I'm sort of agnostic as to which one is sort of wins. I mean, I grew up in the sort of British, English, British Keynesian tradition.

John Maynard Keynes.

Keynesian to me means, the phrase I use in the book is managed capitalism. It's a capitalist system, but you manage it in various ways. Number one, the original crux of Keynesianism, you need the government to boost demand in times of slumps. So Keynesian stimulus policies. But it's not just that. Keynesianism also involved capitalism.

a whole series of sort of attempts to manage the financial sector, for example. It was a social bargain, basically. The capitalists were allowed to continue to own companies. There's still quite a lot of inequality. But in return, there were this whole set of social guarantees on employment insurance, National Health Service, which Bismarck started first of all, but then was put into effect.

But you're describing as more European than American. That is. But even in the U.S., even in the U.S., The New Deal was a form of managed capitalism. The reason why I've become more sympathetic to the Marxist or ultra-left view in less than 30 years or so is because that managed capitalism is basically disintegrated, not completely disintegrated, but it's been massively on the defensive.

Yeah, I mean, there's a whole... The car worker in Detroit if he's put on a level playing field with the car worker in India or China who earns, you know, a tenth of the salary, really can't compete. Now, in the car industry, governments have always intervened. The car industry is always seen as too important to leave to the market. But, you know, the clothing industry, for example,

US used to have a huge textile industry that basically went away in the 80s and 90s. And then China came along, the China shock in the early 00s. And that was, you know, that's basically an unprecedented shock. And economists, a lot of American economists, you know, took a long time to recognize that.

But even the people who supported unrestricted free trade, I think now recognize that the China shock, you know, was huge and did a lot of damage there. to industrial areas and, you know, has given a boost to populism, including Trumpian populism.

So the man himself, why is he so anti-free trade and pro-protection? It seems to go back to the 80s in Japan and when Japanese car companies were first coming in here. I think he just sees it in terms of a sort of businessman that... you know, we're giving them our valuable markets and that's always bad. You know, it's like letting a rival casino set up next to his. He shouldn't be allowed.

Beyond him, there's always been this debate about, you know, how far protectionism is, um, Justified. I mean, America in its early decade, century, was a protectionist country. The argument is that when you don't have an industry and you're trying to build it up, you are justified in providing temporary protection for yourself. That doesn't justify slapping tariffs on everything.

Trump's argument seems to be that all trade is bad. He's not just saying, you know, we have to counter unfair trade or we have to defend our infant industries such as they are.

No, no. I mean, that was the basis of his... It's just emotional. It seems to be. It's instinctual, I would say, on his part.

Even though the MAGA movement... portrays itself as you know a movement for workers and a lot of the foot soldiers are you know around the country um it's still a republican party and a republican party is still a party of business

And I didn't think it was going to be sustainable to have a Republican government introducing blanket tariffs because it damages so many businesses and the markets are going to hate it. I think he thought he could take some pain, but when it came to it, it didn't. I mean, that's the great irony here. The Chinese have shown that, you know, they're willing to take more pain than we are.

they can withstand a tariff war because they're a single-party totalitarian state.

Public opinion is not particularly highly rated. And Xi doesn't really care about the stock market that much either. If Trump is going to tariff all America's major trading partners, this gives China an opportunity to sort of make... you know, in outreaches to Europe and Asia and the global south and sort of replace the US in various parts of the world.