Notes from the White House Trade War

This report says that Peter Navarro and his team of economic muggles are losing the battle to control trade policy. That is very good news.

Trump’s key economic advisors are pitted against each other on trade policy, with senior advisor Steve Bannon and trade advisor Peter Navarro on one side and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and his staff on the other, according to FT. One official said there was “a fiery meeting” recently in the Oval Office.

The FT says that Navarro is losing clout and being sidelined in the White House. As a European official put it: “His influence seems to be diminishing quickly.”

Stay tuned.

Source.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Notes from the White House Trade War

  1. Joe says:

    So the report itself appears to be the source. The only actual credit to sources are….

    “according to FT.” “One official said” “The FT says” “As a European official put it”

    Quickly parsed to reveal the source itself for this article is maybe the FT, one official, or possibly a European official. Even a tabloid runs with better sources. Not calling it fake but seems more like a wished narrative than actual reality. I am still looking for the actual FT article that must be out there to elaborate.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      FT has a full article, evidently, but I am not paying for yet another subscription.

      It’s bound to happen, Joe. Peter Navarro is to economists what a flat earther is to astrophysicists. I would be stunned if it isn’t true.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Navarro is an in-your-face advocate of trade protectionism. You don’t support that, do you?

      • Joe says:

        No I do not. However, I insist there is nothing wrong with measures to enforce compliance to prior negotiated terms.

        The individual business under these large trade agreements certainly does not have the influence to counter government interference from non host nations. So whether one calls themselves a free trader or not by accepting large trade bills as the lesser of two evils they then must accept continued government interference to enforce the terms. Even if the host nation to that business is not involved in picking winners or losers the other signatory nations certainly are.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Then you would strongly disagree with Navarro who believes that, if the United States self imposes trade restrictions on all imports from all nations, prosperity will be the result.

          As for your second point. I support the end of all trade restrictions that are not narrowly defined national security matters. All of them. I support the United States doing this unilaterally regardless as to what other nations do. All of them.

          I support any steps moving us closer to that ideal.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          In fact, an unconditional policy of unilateral free trade would ensure that the US government would never again be party to any trade dispute needing resolution by the WTO, UN or any other international tribunal. Unconditional, unilateral free trade is the only path to absolute sovereignty.

  2. Uke says:

    If true, this is very good news and a credit to those in the Trump administration for shunning him.

    I’m all for disparate ideas battling it out. But RD is right; Navarro’s views are as silly and foolish as any flatearther’s or Alex Jones’. They don’t deserve to be outright censored, but they don’t deserve a platform in the highest office of the land, either.

    • notamobster says:

      Alex Jones has a seat in the White House press pool. I’m just saying…

      Also, to Joe, what you’re talking about is not “measures to enforce prior negotiated terms”, as you say because, while I haven’t read the terms of China’s “most favored nation” status agreement, I’m nearly certain that they didn’t agree to 30 or 35% tariffs on their imports if they violate the trade agreement.

      They would, almost certainly, agree to nothing more than some drawn out, bureaucratically hobbled claim of arbitration, as defined by nearly every UCC document ever written.

      • Uke says:

        Alex Jones claimed that, but this was later refuted by the WH. Who the fuck knows? I certainly just don’t care enough about Alex Jones to research what he’s doing.

        “Waiter? Another martini, please.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *