[untitled]
3 comments
Sounds like a nice fact-check.
But Mr. Krugman really shoulda put more emphasis on another couple facts: That only "convenient" facts matter to Trump's political base. And that Washington decision makers who care about facts are going the way of the 8-track tape.
But Mr. Krugman really shoulda put more emphasis on another couple facts: That only "convenient" facts matter to Trump's political base. And that Washington decision makers who care about facts are going the way of the 8-track tape.
Except it isn't a fact-check at all. As usual, Paul Krugman is light on real details and heavy on cherry-picked facts to suit his own personal narrative, not unlike Trump.
Canada's advertisement aired during one of the World Series games, after Trump's initial tweet. As others here have commented, Reagan's position was more nuanced than "tariffs bad", which is how the ad portrays it. Krugman himself admits this in his own article.
Then Krugman goes on the usual ad hominem attack against Donald Trump, because he just admitted that Reagan was in favor of using tariffs to settle political disputes, particularly in response to countries leveling tariffs against the U.S.
Which, mind you, is exactly what Donald Trump says he is doing, raising tariffs on Canada in response to several long-standing tariffs they have had on the importation of U.S. goods. Krugman doesn't dispute this. He cleverly doesn't bring it up at all and instead calls Trump a petulant child levying tariffs for his own political purposes.
Forgive me if I can't take Krugman or anyone else parroting Krugman seriously when he hasn't been able to make a soundly reasoned argument in decades. These low-on-facts high-on-rhetoric articles are empowering Trump.
Canada's advertisement aired during one of the World Series games, after Trump's initial tweet. As others here have commented, Reagan's position was more nuanced than "tariffs bad", which is how the ad portrays it. Krugman himself admits this in his own article.
Then Krugman goes on the usual ad hominem attack against Donald Trump, because he just admitted that Reagan was in favor of using tariffs to settle political disputes, particularly in response to countries leveling tariffs against the U.S.
Which, mind you, is exactly what Donald Trump says he is doing, raising tariffs on Canada in response to several long-standing tariffs they have had on the importation of U.S. goods. Krugman doesn't dispute this. He cleverly doesn't bring it up at all and instead calls Trump a petulant child levying tariffs for his own political purposes.
Forgive me if I can't take Krugman or anyone else parroting Krugman seriously when he hasn't been able to make a soundly reasoned argument in decades. These low-on-facts high-on-rhetoric articles are empowering Trump.
While I'm generally a fan of free trade, there are limitations with where another nation is effectively abusing its own people and creating working conditions that are very different than in the US and in fact not fair trade. I'm also of the mindset that domestic production should be at least somewhat propped up as a necessary component of domestic security/safety.
I'm not convinced that Reagan might have some slightly different views of tariffs today given the altered environment.
To me, this is a lesson that should have been learned under COVID... a similar concern is the consolidation of middlemen in terms of food production and delivery. I'd like to see more competition with meat packers and other agriculture processing groups that aren't sucking every cent possible out of the middle leaving the producers (farms) and consumers (people) with as little as possible while delivering absolutely minimal value add. Not even going into the mega farm, or the likes of Tyson in terms of non-ownership of production to farmers maintaining all the burden. I'd like to see more states require localized packing and distribution channels for more products from whole.