Is Donald Trump A socialist? It’s really about tariffs

A few months ago we published a little blog(LSS 7 4 25) in which we wryly suggested that the policies of Donald Trump. especially on trade tariffs, more resembled those of socialists like Tony Benn than those of classic right wingers like Ronald Reagan. Our aim was less with ideology and more with practical matters: will the tariffs work? We even pointed out that, with advances in automated techniques like AI, it was pretty unlikely that huge numbers of jobs would be created in manufacturing, even if the tariffs really did change the pattern of trade in the way Mr Trump desires.

It’s view shared by professional economists of some standing, as this article by Steven Greenhouse for the Guardian points out. For example Ann Harrison of UC Berkeley, not only shares our thoughts on the automation thing. She also points out that to be successful, tariffs need steady application over decades. Trump’s wildly erratic “they’re on. they’re off” approach seriously impedes investment planning. And how long has he got anyway? Would a successor-perhaps JD Vance or a younger member of the Trump dynasty-have the same approach? While Michael Strain of the impeccably right wing American Enterprise Institute worries that all these tariffs will simply raise costs for most US manufacturers – a serious own goal if ever there was one. The various experts raise other questions too. Will the so called pledges of investment from other nations really materialise? Will the tariffs create an archaic automobile industry based on petrol, hopelessly unable to sell a single unit to a world which has long since moved on to electric? Frankly, are tariffs high enough to achieve their stated purpose(yes, that surprised us too) But all of these are laid out in Steven’s excellent article.

Tariffs are like many things. Sometimes they’re good and sometimes they’re not. If they were all good, then every nation would set them at 100%. If they were all bad, they would have been abolished long ago. The real mistake is to implement a good idea with insufficient care and attention. Now that really does resemble many socialist regimes of the past.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/18/trumps-tariffs-manufacturing-resurgence-jobs

#donald trump #socialism #capita;ism #tariifs #trade #economics #american enterprise institute

G7 v BRICS: is this how the sides will line up for World War Three?

We know we started out as a science based blog, mainly devoted to the encouragement of more research into antibiotics. If our brief has widened a little, it is because we cannot ignore the wider world around us. If that world decides to spend more on weapons of mass destruction, and less on antibiotic research, it impinges directly on us and our readers. Which is why this pair of articles from the Guardian caught our eye. They strongly suggest that the sides for the next world war are lining up. And the outcome is by no means certain.

On the one hand are the G7 group of countries, led by the USA.[1] Thirty years ago they had the game in their hands. Immensely rich, accounting for an enormous slice of the global pie, their triumph over the Communist bloc had seemed to set them apart . They were the world’s bankers, the world’s policemen, the world’s shop keepers. Since when, hubris seemed to set in and it has been downhill all the way. Iraq, financial crash, tariffs, Brexit…………These words are shorthand, metanymies if you will, for a deep moral rot that is grounded in an almost childlike reverence for the supremacy of financial markets and the sorts of people who work in them. Now as the admirable Joseph Stiglitz and his colleagues observe, the once mighty G7 is in danger of being little more than a front organisation for the interests of large American multinationals. A position sure to alienate many around the world.

Among the alienated are a group which starting out as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)[2] has expanded to include rising stars such as Indonesia. It may not be morally perfect either(its stance on Ukraine, and the fact that many members are autocracies cannot be overlooked). But its members are united on one thing: they are tired of the whims and policy lurches of the US, particularly under such a nakedly self-serving President as the current one. They are ready to have done with the traditional instruments of US domination such as the Reserve Dollar. And they are developing the economic resources to make these ambitions feasible.

History has two lessons. The decline of one hegemonic power and the rise of another is usually a signal of impending war. Another is the formation of alliance blocks; as one small event triggers a chain reaction of consequences. Think Europe 1914 as the case example for both. And don’t expect the supply of antibiotics to go up any time soon.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/02/the-g7-has-once-again-put-multinationals-profits-over-the-interests-of-people?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/13/the-guardian-view-on-brics-growing-up-a-new-bloc-seeks-autonomy-and-eyes-a-post-western-order?CMP=Share_iOSAp

#G7 #BRICS #China #USA #IMF #dollar #geopolitics #brasil #russia #indonesia

Calling all Billionaires: Please read this blog

John Caudwell[1] is no fool. Anyone who has started a company like Phones4U and turned it into a multibillion pound company must be pretty well endowed in the brains department. Yet he has one particularly intriguing belief. He believes in meritocracy: he is deeply suspicious of the idea of inherited wealth. If you want to know more about why you can hear home talking to Tony Hawks in this podcast [2] Tony Hawks is Giving Nothing Away on the BBC. But essentially Caudwell thinks that in the long run his children will lead healthier, happier lives if they have to make their own way. Like he did.

We don’t know about individuals. But we know societies function better if the follow Caudwell’s prescriptions. Old LSS hands will recall our long time advocacy of the works of Thomas Piketty [3] and Wilkinson and Pickett. [4]Who show that societies with more equal economic structures have better health outcomes, lower crime, more scientific innovation and much higher social mobility, than less equal peers. One of their key findings was that wealth hoarded into family dynasties is one of the key blockers of healthily mobile societies.

Which is why Caudwell has joined the Giving Pledge. [5]No it’s not a marxist commie plot: it’s run by some of the richest people on the planet. In the words of the organisation’s own website:

Pledgers support a wide array of issues in every corner of the globe and give in a multitude of ways. What unites them is a shared promise and a commitment to creating an impact.

Wealth can be spent in two ways. It can be wasted in endless competitions as to who drinks the best bottle of wine, drives the fastest Rolls Royce or has the biggest yacht. Or it can be re invested like this creating a healthier better world, with-who knows?-maybe even enough antibiotics. if you really want to spend your money to make your children safe, this is the way to do it. If you are a billionaire, thank you for reading. If you are not-find one gentle readers, and press the works of the Giving Pledge into their hands.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Caudwell

[2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m002fj92

[3] Thomas Piketty Capital in the 21st Century Harvard University Press 2014

[4] Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett The Spirit Level Penguin 2009

[5]https://www.givingpledge.org/pledger/john-caudwell/

#john caudwell #the giving pledge #economics #philanthropy # equality #social mobility

Why a falling population will solve most of our problems

Photo by Kostiantyn Stupak on Pexels.com

Back in the 1970s we used to worry about rising population the way we worry about antibiotics now. Problems like pollution, energy shortages and even climate change were being discussed in the better pubs in the area where we grew up. Birth rates were soaring around the world. Everyone agreed that by 2010 there were going to be far,far too many people for the planet to support (and you wondered why you weren’t invited to more parties?-ed)Since when the situation has changed. Rulers, particularly of the more authoritarian sort, are fretting that their populations are actually starting to fall. The reason this keeps them awake at night, they asseverate, is that thereby there will not be enough young workers to keep pensioners in the style of living to which they have become accustomed (although we privately suspect they have darker motives) “Make women have more children!” is their cry. How about “the pram is the tank of the Home Front!” Or has that one been used already?

The reality is rather different as Larry Elliott points out so limpidly in this short piece for The Guardian [1] A falling population means less pressure on oceans, air and land. Less need for antibiotics! More seats in cinemas and restaurants! And, quite quickly, a rising GDP per head of population. As for the economic thing: a single modern worker produces and consumes far more GDP and products than a hundred medieval farm hands. To keep the economy growing you just need to raise the standard of living, you don’t need more workers

But as committed feminists we have another sort of worry. If you really want women to have more children, you will have to take them out of universities and higher education generally. Re- structure the wage market so men are again the main breadwinners. Recreate ideologies of patriarchy and submission, a bit like those currently popular in Afghanistan. is that what you really want?

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/02/britain-falling-birthrate-economy-politics

#feminism #pollution #population #economics #ecology

Why the Crash of 2028 was worst of all-and why we should have seen it coming

Croydon January 11 2029

Looking back to the events of last autumn they were so very huge and happened so very fast it is still hard to believe they occurred at all, let alone been seen coming. But no market crash happens out of the blue . The causes of had been building up for years And just like 1929 and 2008 they were centred on the property market. With one new deadly ingredient: climate change.

By 2024, 2025 at the latest, it was clear that accelerating climate change was posing a systemic risk to the balance sheets of insurance companies.[1] [2] Vast areas of housing and other real estate close to coasts and along river valleys were becoming too vulnerable to justify the potential payouts, however astronomical the premiums .But spurred by President Trump’s tax cuts, house prices soared: and people extracted money to binge on one last great consumer boom. Yet after the series of giant hurricanes in the Gulf in the summer of 2028 , it was not surprising that several insurers went effectively bankrupt: and others required government help of such size as to seriously weaken the dollar and cast doubts on the value of US Treasuries. Suddenly everyone paused spending. And as potentially uninsurable houses represent no value at all the property market turned down. Just as in 1929 and 2008,a collapse in spending followed, turning the situation from downturn into recession and recession into depression in a few short months. Stock market crashes and massive bank failures followed by the same inexorable logic as in those earlier years. And this time there was no way back

For unlike 2008 there’s no benign community of co-operating nations to pool resources to the rescue. As much due to the efforts Trump administration as anyone else , the world is now divided in to hostile trading blocks. It is in the interest of each to see others fail, as they accrue power and status thereby. So China laughed as its American rival staggers to final ruin , opening a sure and bloodless way to Taiwan. But worse still, unlike previous recessions there can be no return via the normal business cycle. Climate breakdown is the norm: and the conditions it has produced cannot go away, at least in our lifetimes. We ignored the warnings because it was said to do anything about climate change would be bad for business and spoil our prosperity. How ironic that sounds in view of the poverty we must all now endure. Forever,

[1] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/climate-change-and-p-and-c-insurance-the-threat-and-opportunity

this piece by pitilla clark of the Financial Times is well worth jumping the paywall:

[2]https://www.ft.com/content/9e5df375-650d-492e-ba51-fb5a34e6ddd6

#global warming #climate change #financial markets #stock market crash #investor #economics

Gold is King!: Did we actually get something right?

Last October (LSS 26 10 24) we published a fanciful piece which purported to come from June 2025. In it, we suggested that US President Donald Trump had raised tariffs to 60% on China and 20% on the rest of the world. (nah, impossible-ed)The resulting disquiet in the bond markets general loss of confidence in US assets and a fall in the dollar, seriously affected its status as the world’s reserve currency. In such circumstances we couldn’t in all honesty see any alternative to gold as the de facto reserve, with all the obvious disadvantages that brings. You will forgive us a modest cough, gentle readers, if we suggest that our little blog, for all it got wrong, seems oddly prescient if you fast forward( or back) to April 2025, a full month ahead of our crystal ball gazing!

Because the recent IMF report [1] suggests the very dangers to which we so modestly adverted you. are now real. Of course, the IMF is not perfect; it too will have its biases and unconscious assumptions like everyone else. But it is compiled by some of the sharpest and most knowledgeable financial minds on the planet, which is why their arguments should be at least engaged with respect. Which is why one aspect highlighted by the Guardian among others [2] has caused us particular disquiet. The writer points out that in the panic after COVID 19 got going back in March 2020, and the famous “dash for cash” it was only the Fed rescuing the US Treasury that prevented a total rout. However:

The real concern here is not technical dysfunction in treasury markets or the mechanics of the Fed, which are the bedrock of the global financial system. It’s about the politicisation of the monetary-fiscal nexus under a Trumpian regime that is fundamentally hostile to the norms of liberal-democratic governance. When even the dollar is no longer a safe haven, what – or who – can be?

There are signs already that gloom can be overdone. As we write these words, Mr Trump and his acolytes appear to be signalling a weakening of their stand on China. While his latest stance on Ukraine suggests bets on his resolve on any issue may be misplaced. In which case the world may breathe a little more easily. Stocks rose yesterday: and gold has fallen back, a little. We are not economic experts nor financial advisors. But as humble citizens with an eye for History we have to at least ask: how long can the dollar, and US Treasuries stay on top of this sort of thing goes on?

[1]https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2025/04/22/world-economic-outlook-april-2025

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/the-guardian-view-on-the-imfs-warning-donald-trump-could-cost-the-world-a-trillion-dollars

#donald trump #USA #china #IMF #world trade #gold #bonds #equities #economics

Is Donald Trump a Socialist?

Is Donald Trump a socialist, or is he just governing like one? For a man who made his money in the freewheeling and dealing Manhattan property market, it seems an odd term to use. And doubtless he and his supporters would reject it vehemently. But let’s go back to first principles and look at what he does, not what he says.

The very essence of a socialist policy is that an economy should not be run by free market methods. It can and should be run on others, designed to support the welfare of all the groups living in it. If they are poor, money must be found through taxes to alleviate that. If their communities depend on certain industrial conglomerations. such as steel making for example, then money must be found to sustain those industries, to avert the social damage which would ensue/ In Britain the key exponents of this view were people like Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn, who felt public money should be found to support the mining industries, even if those industries operated at less than optimum economic efficiency. In the 1970s Benn went further, suggesting a siege economy protected by tariffs as an alternative to joining the European Community, forerunner of the EU.

The alternative view was pioneered by thinkers such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The unhindered operation of free markets, with the lowest possible levels of tax and tariff would facilitate the best possible social outcome. Ricardo developed this in his theory of comparative advantage. By which countries or regions specialising in different products would trade in these to their mutual benefit. His example was Britain and Portugal, which mutually traded manufactured goods and port wine. The same principle holds today.

The key political exponents of this view were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, whose most memorable declaration was “you can’t buck the markets”. As we write, Mr Trump’s policies seem to be doing exactly that. Unlike others, we judge him to have an honesty of purpose: he is trying to protect the communities that voted for him. Communities whose social structure and very identity depend on the old smokestack industries around which they cluster. Time will tell if he will be successful. But two things worry us. Firstly even if factories are attracted back to the rustbelt, it is unlikely that modern automated plants will need many factory hands. And second: the last twenty years or so of the Communist bloc were spent trying to keep these same sort of plants going. History did not judge that enterprise kindly.

#free markets #socialism #communism #adam smith #david ricardo #margaret thatcher #donald trump #united states of america

Friday Night: A low Tariff Manhattan

This week Wall Street and its famous financial markets seem to be the centre of the world, don’t they? Just like in 1929 and 2008, for example. So where is Wall Street? We looked on the interweb and found it was in a place called Manhattan, which is in America, which is famous for having leaders of genius. So we thought we would celebrate this fact by bringing you a reprise of that famous drink, The Manhattan. Despite the connotations, how American is it really? Let’s assemble one and find out.

The real beauty of making a Manhattan is its simplicity : a child could do it, just like calculating tariffs. But as no responsible adult would ever let a child do either, we’ll accept you are making this yourself. And if you do, you will find it is divided into two parts. A good patriotic all-American part. And a bad part, which requires Foreigners.

Ice Generally speaking, 100% Made in America. Not only does this attract no tariffs, but its production supply and distribution are all by American workers, thus creating any number of well-paid posts of employment. No nasty foreigner can ever threaten American Ice. If all the stuff in the Rocky Mountains melts due to global warming, they can just invade Greenland to get some more. 4 or 5 cubes for the average Manhattan, by the way,

Bourbon As far as we know this too is made in America. Originally it was called whisky, which was made in somewhere evil and foreign called Scotland (although some of the golf courses are OK) And therefore quite rightly attracts a tariff . But if it is made in America there is no tariff at all, and the more Americans drink of it the more colossal will be the numbers of high paying jobs for American workers created thereby. Oh yeah, 3-4 measures will do.

Vermouth Now we come to the Bad Part. Because Vermouth (often branded with funny sounding names like Martini or Cinzano) come from Italy! Not only has nothing good, like science, art, literature, cooking or architecture ever come from that country: behind the smiling mask of friendship, they are ready to have their way with American trade, American pizza, who knows, maybe even American ladies, the lotharios! No wonder it now attracts huge tariffs! But since vermouth has been floating around Manhattans ever since that island became the financial capital of the world, you’ll just have to put up with it. One measure of the red stuff should not put too much pressure on US Treasuries,

Mixing Get an American Worker to put each of the above components one by one into an American cocktail glass, made from American glass, as they will taste better. Make the American Worker stir them. He/she/they may now add a tariff-free American Cocktail cherry, on a stick made from good American Sequoia trees, creating even more well paid secure American jobs. That done, you may drink your Manhattan. Only one, of course. And think of all the American jobs you have created thereby , which should compensate for those lost by the current slight adjustments in the Stock markets just over the road.

#donald trump #manhattan #stock market #bond market #economic crisis #Wall Street

Towards a World Government: Will Donald Trump be the First Emperor?

President Trump Postlaunch Remarks (NHQ202005300037) by NASA HQ PHOTO is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

A few weeks ago we posted a series of blogs (LSS 8 1 25 et seq) wherein we speculated about the pros and cons of a hypothetical World Government. If you do things like that, you need to look seriously at the possible candidates. And it looks as if the first one has come along. It is Donald J Trump, erstwhile 45th President, and now 47th President of the United States of America, A man who according to his own lights is as antipathetical to the idea of international cooperation and world government as you can get. But read on gentle reader.

Because there’s a theory doing the rounds which suggests that, whatever his ostensible aims, this is what he will achieve. It goes something like this. The early weeks of the Trump administration have been marked by falling financial markets and wild swings of tariff policy that have engendered a widespread sense of chaos and unease. An angst which is entirely inimical to the interests of the United States and its wealthier classes. But really it is all part of a Cunning Plan. Eventually things get so bad that The Donald calls all interested parties to a huge meeting at his palace at Mar-a- Lago. There he makes the following offer. First all willing parties revalue their currencies upwards against the dollar. Secondly they cash in all current US Treasury bonds in return for 100 year securities, which yield no interest whatsoever. In return the willing receive military protection and no tariffs, Anyone else had better look out. The 1985 Plaza accords on steroids, you might say. Except this time, all financial power and military power accrues back to the USA which becomes, de facto, the world government. We have channelled the excellent Roge Karma of the Atlantic (via Apple News) for today’s link; [1] But many thinkers, including the learned Gillian Tett of the FT have been floating this since January (she gets namechecked in this one)

The trouble with Cunning Plans is that they don’t always work. There are several problems with this one, starting with the Plaza accords. When they were signed, it was by a small group of rich nations who held a common enemy(the Soviet Union) President Reagan had carefully nurtured good, respectful relations with his allies. The current administration, whatever its reasons, works by bullying, blustering and threats. Not ways to engender co-operation and consent. Secondly there are now large and proud players, such as India and China who are rapidly evolving their own interests. Why should they throw away these futures on a scheme designed to benefit the United States? But the final sinkers are the very nature of the United States and its 45th/47th President. Hisory shows that they are not a reliable military protector, as any South Vietnamese, Afghan or Ukrainian will tell you. And if Mr Trump is so keen to weaken the dollar, why does he come out so strongly in its defence as the world reserve currency, as Mr Karma so astutely points out? Someone in Washington clearly knows the value of this reserve status, and the mortal peril which its loss represents to US power. Such inconsistency invites no confidence whatsover.

Our verdict? America really did have the game in its hands between 1989 and 2003, when it was thrown away in the sands of Iraq. Trump is like the Byzantine Emperor Justinian,(527-565 CE) setting out re conquer lost dominions. Wishing ends without sufficiently weighing the means. If there is to be a World Government, it won’t be like this.

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/03/qanon-tariffs/682144/

#world government #donald trump #plaza accords #justinian #economics #politics #history

We’re up to our necks in Smoot Hawley here

God knows, we don’t like to blow our own trumpet here. The pictures of the Conceited Ape and the Man Blowing His Own Trumpet (both generated with AI) are entirely coincidental. But attentive readers may have noticed how we have been pushing the dangers of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 and its parallels to the policies of Mr Donald Trump (at the time of writing his title is still Mr) .

Now the admirable Larry Elliott of the Guardian has got in on the act [1] We’ve often repeated his thoughts on these pages. And this time he goes further, suggesting it is a sign of American weakness, not strength. Well worth a read over your morning latte, we think As for us, we hope that is the last we see of Messrs Smoot and Hawley and their execrable tariff.

But before we go here are a few final thoughts

1 You read it here first

2 Most historians and economists think Smoot Hawley was a major step in the road to World War 2

3 Despite what nostalgists tell you, wars aren’t all chirpy cockneys singing jolly songs in Underground Stations. Ask them in Ukraine if you don’t believe us.

4 A nation may claim the right to act entirely in its own interest, without regard to others. Fair enough. But by the same logic does an individual have the right to sell Class A drugs such as heroin, if he can make money thereby?

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/13/donald-trump-trade-war-president-china#

#tariffs #trade #world war #smoot hawley #larry elliott #donald trump