- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Tariffs Are Economic Patriotism, Putting Americans First

As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington Post: “Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs.”

The story began: “National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying for the administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump’s repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot the bill.”

A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.

A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional tax.

If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff.

China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25 percent tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China’s economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.

Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen, before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party’s path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free trade.

The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, “the encouragement and protection of manufactures.” It was the second act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.

After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked.

Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln’s War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer “has no right or claim to equality with our own. … He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties.”

That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.

The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson’s income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades —the Roaring ’20s.

That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America’s schoolchildren have been indoctrinated for decades.

The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain: The Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures.

Milton Friedman taught us that.

A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.

The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher tuition than their American counterparts.

What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith in a system crafted by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people?

What great nation did free traders ever build?

Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws, the British showed the folly of free trade.

They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the USA and ended it with an economy half of ours, and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American System.

Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries —the British before 1850, the United States between 1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades—how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism.

The problem for President Trump?

Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.

Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

33 Comments (Open | Close)

33 Comments To "Tariffs Are Economic Patriotism, Putting Americans First"

#1 Comment By Fred Bowman On May 13, 2019 @ 9:32 pm

Well Pat, we put tariffs on China, and they put tariffs on the US. How those that work out, especially since America has pretty much “sold out” it’s manufacturing might to countries such as China? Tell me who going to paying the price on all on this? Let me guess? Working and Middle Class Americans? Tell me I’m wrong. Do us all a favor, quit kissing Donald Trump’s ass in whatever stupid sh*t he does.

#2 Comment By thomas r oconnor On May 13, 2019 @ 9:48 pm

I’m all for buying American if I could only find it’s products. When it appears everything is made in China where’s the option on the tax?

#3 Comment By Anon1970 On May 13, 2019 @ 9:48 pm

I guess it depends on whose economic history you are reading. Many economists in the past have referred to the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 as a beggar thy neighbor policy. The economies of central Europe were particularly hard hit, with major bank failures in Germany and Austria in 1931. The British Empire reacted with the creation of the Imperial preference tariff in 1932: zero or low tariffs on imports from other members of the Empire, and higher rates for other countries. In 1932, the Nazi party in Germany was the largest vote getter in two Reichstag elections.

Trump has managed to alienate almost all of America’s traditional allies. Twitter has replaced traditional diplomacy. I am not optimistic that things will turn out all that well, but at age 70+, it doesn’t much matter to me.

#4 Comment By Whine Merchant On May 13, 2019 @ 10:03 pm

This is what made America great – in the age of clipper ships and hard goods on wharves. This does not fit the interconnected, interdependent information and service world, with internet transfer of the new goods that exist in the cyberworld or can be sent air freight the same day.

It does indeed encourage each nation to build its own capacity, squeezing-out bloated American processes and systems for leaner planning and production. Detroit died because the big three thought that the main market would buy their glamour products; once the rest of the world started to buy vehicles and not bicycles, they found cheaper and better quality cars from Europe and Japan. Quality matters to consumers, something the US still cannot match in mass production for vehicles.

Buchanan’s recipe is for a bygone era. The McCormick reaper started the loss of labor-intensive farming 140 years ago, so don’t expect those Midwest grain farms to return to employing millions put out of work by Trump’s simplistic wind-bagging.

#5 Comment By Bungalow Bill On May 14, 2019 @ 6:16 am

Taxing your way to prosperity… yeah right. How about America try building a decent car?

#6 Comment By JeffK On May 14, 2019 @ 6:35 am

Growing up middle class in the 1970’s in a mill town in SW PA, where the economy was booming and everybody was working, getting a new pair of Converse Chuck Taylor tennis shoes for high school was a big deal. Getting a pair of the German Adidas white, with green stripes, running shoes was an even bigger deal.

Now getting a new pair of shoes doesn’t seem like much. Closets are full of clothes. Kitchens are full of fancy gadgets, and garages of full of stuff. So is the shed. I know people like me that even have more stuff in a U-Store-it monthly rental.

I could easily go back to having less crap if that puts people everybody back to work without running a federal budget deficit.

That’s what it’s going to take since China won’t buy the stuff we make.

We shall see how this all plays out. There will be LOTS of economic disruption if we go back to the ’70s. We shall see if the American public thinks it’s worth it.

#7 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 14, 2019 @ 9:34 am

Pat, you’re the best:

** “A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities…”

** “Tariffs were the taxes that made America great…so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market…That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first…”

** “If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff. China loses the sale…”

** “What great nation did free traders ever build? Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime…”

** “The loss of [a nation’s] economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.”

#8 Comment By Jhawk On May 14, 2019 @ 9:50 am

What Pat and too many others are missing is that Trump has turned a trade dispute into a matter of pride: Chinese national pride versus his ego. The Chinese simply can’t and won’t back down as he expects for that simple reason. This will not end well.

#9 Comment By TheSnark On May 14, 2019 @ 10:18 am

Tariffs are a selective sales tax. If I want to buy from a country Trump doesn’t like, I am forced to pay extra sales taxes. They are an infringement of economic freedom, they are the government telling me what to buy.

#10 Comment By Patricus On May 14, 2019 @ 10:52 am

Besides being economic units we are a nation and we can and should prefer American manufactured products. All other nations protect their manufactures. If they don’t they will face ruin.

The doctrine of ‘free trade’ is an abstraction. People talk free trade then engage in protectionism.

#11 Comment By Paul Caliando On May 14, 2019 @ 11:46 am

Tariffs benefit some Americans, hurt others. And why should Americans be prevented or hindered from buying any foreign-made goods? In my opinion, they shouldn’t.

#12 Comment By FJR – Atlanta On May 14, 2019 @ 11:49 am

I literally cannot show my support for Trump in this tariff war. I mean I wholly support his policy but can no longer afford to buy a MAGA hat or American flag to wave as they are made in China.

#13 Comment By Kouros On May 14, 2019 @ 12:06 pm

Many of the products brought from China are not entirely built in China, just finished there, but only China will bear the brunt of US tariffs. We have long supply chains.

Manufacturers (aka job creators, capitalists) will be in no rush to bring all the consumer goods industry back to the US, but will slowly move it to other countries in SE Asia. None of which has the built infrastructure to support such an endeavor.

US capitalists will have no desire to bring jobs back with the labor and medical insurance costs (even when considering the Southern US States).

While the whole thing of bringing jobs back to the US is a good ruse that doesn’t hold water, the truth is that the US wants to limit the amount of money China has available to pursue its projects of integrating Eurasia and to arm itself against the big thug that is the US, which was never shy in using gunboat diplomacy, which is why the US Navy was built in the first place.

Only children and feeble minded adults believe in the nice story of US protecting the shipping lanes… US is trying to protect its ability to bomb anyone anywhere at anytime if so chooses.

#14 Comment By Kessler On May 14, 2019 @ 12:14 pm

Free market can benefit USA, when you can show how USA workers can live decent lives on wages of worker in Indonesia or China. The whole principle of free trade is that if somebody can produce products more efficiently, they should do it and then trade product, generating extra value. But difference in wages is not production efficiency. It’s buisness taking life from workers, who have to eat cheap, poor quality food, live in poor conditions and overwork their bodies so they would die sooner, having lived lives of hardship and dull routine.

#15 Comment By Lee On May 14, 2019 @ 12:23 pm

Permanent tariffs are a different animal than temporary tariffs levied to gain leverage in negotiations which is what we have with Trump. There is a very high level of risk and uncertainty so businesses, including farmers, find it extremely difficult to make economic decisions. Are YOU going to start a plant to make something in the US that can only compete with Chinese products if Trump’s tariffs remain in effect? Right, I didn’t think so. Nor will anyone else.

#16 Comment By david On May 14, 2019 @ 12:41 pm

Americans are really full of themselves, sigh!

Just like almost article I have read in the media, this article is making so many wrong headed claims, ignoring so many counter-claims, gloss over so many inconvenient facts, that it is not worth the time to refute them one by one. Let me just point out a few (especially those singled out by another commentator calls Kurt)

** “A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities…”

So, tell the readers why you want a nation to be economically independent? You hate China, you think China is a threat, you think China will be number 1 and you can’t stand this thought? Because of your own fear, you want Americans to make our own underwear and tennis shoes, even though none of us are interested?

** “If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not pay the tariff. China loses the sale…”

Set aside the moral issue of forcing people to choose against their own will, what happens if there is no comparable goods from other nations? Oh, tough luck to me, right?

** “The loss of [a nation’s] economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.”

Right, do you know you are making everyone laugh? Liechtenstein and Monaco should manufacture everything they need if they treasure their national identity, their independence, blah, blah, blah.

——

Americans are so lost when dealing with China. Instead of blaming our own uncompetitiveness (we have trade deficit with over 100 countries, not just with China) or our own faults (political system, educational system, work ethic, etc), we throw in every imaginable reasons we can think of against China (forced IP transfer, theft, unfair trades, subsidies, dumping, non-tariff barriers, tariff barriers, etc). And then we over-estimate our strengths (we have > 300 billions trade deficit with China, so we can’t lose), and then we ignore their strengths (trillions of foreign reserve, monopoly of rare earth, fastest growing consumer market, super-efficient infrastructure, etc), and then we start the dispute in such public manner that no politicians can accept any possible reasonable compromise.

As another person comments, if US has a case, bring it privately to WTO (another simple fact: China has highest compliance rate in WTO than any nation whenever they lost a case. US has one of the lowest)

Sounds very much like a school bully in the playground. This is what the people in this country becomes.

#17 Comment By david On May 14, 2019 @ 1:12 pm

Amen, Mr Buchanan. This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to TAC.

#18 Comment By William Foster On May 14, 2019 @ 2:43 pm

Buchanan was truly born too late. His yearning for a return to an idealized 19th- or even 18th-Century version of America will never be fulfilled, and his prolonged grieving process is getting harder and harder to watch.

#19 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 14, 2019 @ 4:26 pm

Why Free Traders and All Americans Should Back Trump on China Policy:

“If ever there were a right time to impose punitive tariffs, it is now, and it is against China,” economic expert Stephen Moore writes in The Hill. “This is the right moment to shut down China’s abusive trade practices forever.”

Here is the essential fact you don’t hear on the nightly news: “The average tariff that we imposed on China when Trump entered the White House was about 4 percent. China’s tariffs on us were about 10 percent,” Moore explains. “There is not one demand that Trump is making of China’s President Xi that is unreasonable.”

[1]

#20 Comment By Whine Merchant On May 14, 2019 @ 4:42 pm

Whatever happened to the GOP mantra, “Free Markets Make Free People”??

Oh, that’s right, we’re busy “MAGA”.

Suckers!!

#21 Comment By Quizil Donor On May 14, 2019 @ 4:49 pm

“A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.”

This is a very well turned phrase, that encapsulates the core factor that is more aptly described as deliberately suppressed, rather than merely ignored.

‘Free Trade’ is an fully amorphous concept that can justify whatever suits the interests of its promoters/beneficiaries at any given point in time, which is fairly said about any broad, exception-ridden, conceptual ideology that man can cobble together.

In the historic or ancient concept, trading states developed international networks to exchange murex shell dye for wine amphoras, silk cloth traded for spices, Garum exchanged for precious stones, flour or metals. This was a trade of goods that did not exist, were in short supply or could not otherwise be produced or obtained in the territories of the respective states.

In the current manifestation of so-called Free Trade, a pop-up ISO2001 Flat screen factory can be sited anywhere, even windswept, barren farmland outside, say, Janesville WI (or not..). The product and its technology are not unique to a people, culture or region, and its manufacture/export in such a system is dictated by a race-to-the-bottom in labor cost.

We no longer allow a 8-year old to work industrial looms for 10 cents a day, to have his back broken or fingers torn off, for pretty good reason. Free Market forces were more than willing to engage in this conduct. The same reasons we protect the child from the disfigurement once commonly accepted by market forces extend to protecting the economic and monetary health of the state. It was the Confederate States that wrote a constitutional ban on import Tariffs into their government, not the United States.

I listen particularly for the use of the word ‘WE’ when this topic is discussed. The term ’we’ is generously applied in a one-sided fashion to stateless/trans-national speculators, financiers and importers, as though their activities are on behalf of Americans or the nation state, when in fact they are in no way motivated by such ideals. The stock market can often soar when news indicates that GM plans layoffs or plant closings domestically. The US speculatory markets will reward a US transmission plant moving into a Maquiladora, strategically positioned a couple feet across the border into Mexico.

This is passed off as ‘creative destruction’ of finished goods manufactures, however such ‘creative destruction’ of financial / rentier / agribusiness markets is not permitted, and its actors are forcibly recapitalised at the expense of the general public when their excesses finally reach critical mass.

Instead of some artificial Ideology with endless exemptions and cut-outs, it really boils down to=

Do you Lie, do you Steal, do you Cheat? Wherever Greed is the primary motivating factor, you will find liars, cheater and thieves.

Any man-made ideology can attribute a suite of characteristics to some other competitor theorum and reserve for itself the noblest sounding attributes.. replete with endless, dubious ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ cards to permit total opposite conduct whenever it suits the interests of the Down-Trader.

The ultimate American guidepost is to adhere to the policies of Washington’s Farewell Address – in doing so, you would reduce or eliminate most of the major dysfunction in our economic and political systems, (within a Republic) as they exist today.

These policies are not based on an ideology concocted by the fevered minds of those who are observing the Forest without noting all those pesky trees. The G.W. Farewell Address principles are based on proven observations of basic human nature and how they manifest in/across societies and nations.

If you reject the Washingtonian suite of policies, which both major parties now refuse, you will have a deceptive society, based on catering to moneyed, powerful and corrupt special interests. Your norm will be to embrace control by the powerful over the weak, through lying, cheating and stealing, often under color of ‘law’. No ideology will save you from this, but it can serve as a temporary distraction.

There is no painless route out of trade scams or surrender of sovereignty like NAFTA or Brexit without breaking some eggs to make the omelet. The founders of these scams built in a protective dead-mans switch that was designed to deter tampering or repeal, but you will come out on the other side stronger once you prevail.

My concern is not the tariffs but that we simply capitulate to a return to Soybeans for Semi-conductors, claim victory and call it a day.

#22 Comment By Mike S On May 15, 2019 @ 8:46 am

Tariffs choose winners and losers. The losers in this case are American farmers. Trump tries to counter this by providing them even more welfare than we normally do. Without a Chinese market, some of these crops go to South America where the local farmers can’t compete with the heavily subsidized American crops. This impoverishes them and sends many migrating north looking for work in the US.

The world is a lot more complicated than Buchanan thinks

#23 Comment By Nathan C On May 15, 2019 @ 9:47 am

If China does not “get the sale,” the sale will go to to Taiwan or Vietnam or Malaysia or Mexico. Yes, these tariffs will actually encourage businesses to locate factories outside of China. True. Foxconn is already doing that. They are starting up new factories in Taiwan, their home base.
Why would a business that can export to the US locate a factory in the US, with its high taxes, regulated labor market, tight environmental protections, and lawsuits? They won’t. Shipping to the US on a container costs almost nothing. Investing in the US is for fools when it comes to factory work. It’s fine if you start up in the US, but there isn’t any other reason.
As soon as Trump is gone — in 5.5 years, or four years less — the tariffs will go away and things will go back more or less the way they were. The Chinese government knows that. Do you think that they will cave in before the next election? Not a chance. Do you think that they will cave in after, knowing that DT will be gone in 48 months? President Xi does not have to run for re-election. He can afford to wait.
This is not an argument for or against tariffs if pursued endlessly by a dictatorship. But the GOP generally doesn’t want them, and neither do the the Democrats, and the donors do not. So they won’t last. That’s just the way it is and seems very likely to be. Trump is a fluke and a mere blip in a very longstanding arrangement that is based on more or less free trade. Trump is about as important to that arrangement as a scratch in an LP record. He’s an annoyance, a fly on the windshield.

#24 Comment By JeffK On May 15, 2019 @ 10:40 am

A Democratic Congress should zero out all farm subsidies. Most midwest farm states vote solidly red, so why should The Democrats care? Hardball, McConnel style politics.

If you like Trump, you should man up and own the results of those policies. All of them.

#25 Comment By david On May 15, 2019 @ 1:24 pm

Kurt Gayle says: “Here is the essential fact you don’t hear on the nightly news: “The average tariff that we imposed on China when Trump entered the White House was about 4 percent. China’s tariffs on us were about 10 percent,” Moore explains. “There is not one demand that Trump is making of China’s President Xi that is unreasonable.””

And here is another essential fact you don’t hear on the American media: WTO allows developing countries to have higher tariffs than developed countries – it is an agreement American signs on. In fact, China has lowered their average rate faster than what was originally agreed when they joined WTO.

Take auto tariff for example, before China joined WTO, China’s auto tariff was 100%. From 2001 to 2018, China reduces the rate to 15%. Yes, it is still higher than the 2% US charges. But that is true for EU, Japan and almost all nations too, so this is not something special for China. And if US really is not happy, the proper way is to go back to re-negotiate WTO rules rather than unilaterally start a trade war with the whole world, based on the laughable excuse of “national security”.

It is being both arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

#26 Comment By One Guy On May 15, 2019 @ 1:33 pm

“…economic expert Stephen Moore…”! !!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh. Moore is so incompetent he can’t even get confirmed for a cushy Fed job when there is a GOP Senate. Catherine Rampell destroys him every time they talk.

LOL.

#27 Comment By hooly On May 15, 2019 @ 1:50 pm

It seems Pat is always going on about this ‘economic patriotism’ nonsense and stubbornly living in the 19th century back in the day when America was the the China of its day, the brash up and coming economy / global power. I guess I can’t fault Pat’s nostalgia, he is an old timer. To think appealing to ‘economic nationalism’ will work these days, it’s laughable and pathetic. America is divided, to ask the Coastal Blue State elites to help out their middle American Deplorable Red staters is simply laughable.

I DON’T WANT to be an ‘economic patriot’ … I like cheap goods from China, and Mexican food, and travelling to exotic foreign locales instead of the Midwest, South, etc. … I fee NO AFFINITY with those people. So now what? Are you going to force me to Buy American ??

#28 Comment By Stephen J. On May 15, 2019 @ 2:10 pm

Mr. Buchanan writes: ‘Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity.
“Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.”
——
Very true, just look at the E.U. dictatorship. National Sovereignty has been signed away by treacherous politicians to the globalists. See links below for more info.
[2]

[3]

#29 Comment By Dale On May 15, 2019 @ 7:55 pm

Tariffs do one thing many seem to ignore. They reduce competition. Less competition means inflation, higher interest rates, reduced consumer demand and in some industries, lost jobs. How many years ago was it, 2002 or 2003, when the Republican party voted to reduce the import tax from more than 25% to just 5.25%. Talk about an incentive to outsource.

#30 Comment By Dale On May 15, 2019 @ 8:44 pm

Stephen Moore is a propagandist. He either doesn’t know anything about tariffs or he is a liar. Claiming China’s tariffs on us were about 10 percent.

In June 2015, China reduced a number of import tax rates for clothing, footwear, skincare products, diapers and other consumer goods to boost domestic consumption.

The average reduction was more than 50 percent. Specifically, import tariffs for suits and fur garments were reduced from 14–23 percent to 7–10 percent, import tariffs on shoes and sports shoes were reduced from 22–24 percent to 12 percent, import tariffs for paper diapers were reduced from 7.5 percent to only 2 percent, and import tariffs for skincare products were reduced from 5 percent to 2 percent.

China Customs assesses and collects tariffs. Import tariff rates are divided into six categories: general rates, most-favored-nation (MFN) rates, agreement rates, preferential rates, tariff rate quota rates, and provisional rates. As a member of the WTO, imports from the United States are assessed at the MFN rate.

The five Special Economic Zones, open cities, and foreign trade zones within cities offer preferential duty reductions or exemptions. Companies doing business in these areas should consult the relevant regulations.

China may apply tariff rates significantly lower than the published MFN rate for goods that the government has identified as necessary to the development of a key industry. For example, China’s Customs Administration has occasionally announced preferential tariff rates for items in the automotive, steel, and chemical sectors.

#31 Comment By serguei semine phd On May 15, 2019 @ 9:56 pm

The situation is similar to imposing “Iron Curtain” on Soviet Union when it had flooded western markets with inexpensive lumber products produced by prisoners of Gulag. At the time, this had resulted in a crush of the western timber industry. Today, China is able to use its cheap labour thanks to a billion people, living in rural areas, who would not earn more than $500 USD in their lifetime. Inexpensive labour resources are endless. Similar situation is taking place in South Korea where a special economic cooperation zone has been built on the border with the North, utilizing labour of North Korean workers. At the same time, both China and South Korea are exporting their goods to USA and are calling for healthy and honest competition. This is nonsense. Trump absolutely has the right …

Serguei Semine PhD

#32 Comment By Megan Stokes On May 15, 2019 @ 10:56 pm

Since literally 99% of the astute readers here DISAGREE with Buchanan, this begs the question: is TAC publishing its co-founder’s pro-Trump nonsense (or ego-explosion) merely out of token respect for the “paleo” writer?

After all, the Am Conservative premiered to enlighten us about how the rug was/is being pulled from under our feet; Buchanan lately is levitating on that rug, and apparently indulging in the opioid crisis that defines his lost-Americana today.

#33 Comment By Frogstomp On May 18, 2019 @ 4:36 pm

Decent article. Horrible responses from misinformed idiots.