Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan
At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as “the piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”
After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:
“There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. … And that’s … what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One.”
In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
“Why should I, as President of the United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for decades … (while) the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade?”
To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are a good place to begin.
Our elites see America as an “indispensable nation,” the premier world power whose ordained duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal world order.
They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the future of the planet.
Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free ride on our defense effort, as they engage in trade practices that prosper their own peoples at America’s expense.
Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind America’s back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national ends.
The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.
Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in goods than we sold to the world.
A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world’s goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.
Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people are still with him on putting America first.
Yet he faces some serious obstacles.
What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the mid-1970s?
Americans are indeed carrying the lion’s share of the load of the defense of the West, and of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South Korea and Japan.
But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?
Ike’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an “agonizing reappraisal” of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies, if they did not contribute more money and troops.
Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed, when the Cold War ended, out NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on new allies since the Soviet Empire fell.
If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense Trump demands, or accept the tariffs America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected seems at hand.
He promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay out of Mideast wars, and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.
And that’s what America voted for.
Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign, even within his own party.
Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has imposed and threatening retaliation. Free trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the cost of the items U.S. companies makes abroad and then ships back to the United States.
The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump’s critical tests have yet to come.
And our exasperated president senses this.
Free ride on America? What’s having the worlds reserve currency worth?
Pat forgot to list that one.
But, the U.S. no longer has the world’s currency to rip off all other countries that had to exchange dollars to buy goods. Many countries now have trade deals using their own currency exchange rates. Plus, cryptos on the rise.
Those comments are WAY too shallow. In order to remain a reserve currency the ‘host’ country MUST print-print-print or conquer, there’s no alternatives. If the reserve currency becomes ‘scarce’ then it’s ‘cost/worth’ increases and non-reserve currencies crash. Not a good thing.
The REAL problem here is: Any country should be driven by self-interest, that’s natural. The problem comes in when dealing with the US, is that countries have been taught by crony-capitalists to expect that the US should have THEIR best interest at heart as well. The US has been “for sale” since the 1970’s. Trump is changing that paradyme, and may very well upset the whole apple cart in the process. Those looking for a ‘reset’ are going to get it…..in spades, if Trump is successful. I’m not saying it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but it definitely is an unknown and ‘scary’ thing.
Gilnut, the multi-national corporations may be determined to supersede nation states and they may be THE problem. Just look at the rosters of some of these behemoths like Carlyle Group. The Bushes and Chinese generals, Arab kings, emirs and princes and nearly every former European treasury guy or gal. They talk new world order and it is fairly obvious it means a board of directors of the elite of the elites telling the rest of us what to do and to pay them for it.
The idea that an upstart from Queens, not descended from Pocahontas Rolfe could shape anything is simply unacceptable. ” Not the right sort of chap at all. Sniff sniff.”
Were we still on a Gold Standard as opposed to a paper standard, there would be no reserve currency and everything would be straight forward. Of course the Ivy League shitheads would no longer be able to manipulate currencies or borrow for 0-.25% at the FED Window and all that fun stuff. The FED would not be able to summon tens of trillions and pass it out to foreign banks to phony up their balance sheets temporarily without our knowledge or approval as they did ten years ago.
Nothing to the average American…
Pat’s the man. On point as usual… Chip
Yes America is thoroughly magnanimous when it comes to “defending” the planet, starting wars all over Asia and Africa. “Fighting terrorists and radicals in the Middle East.” Give us a break. The U.S. attacked countries it had no business attacking. People fighting back are designated “terrorists.” The world is supposed to be grateful for this?
The US runs a trade surplus with Canada when services are included. Canada does protect its dairy farmers, which costs Canadian consumers, so I hope Trump does make headway there, but what about American protection of sugar producers? Trump and the media are focusing in narrowly on where foreigners are taking advantage in matters of trade, but the US does the same thing–especially with exporting inflation via uncontrolled expansion of its reserve currency.
This business of Americans feeling sorry for themselves because the world is taking advantage of it is pathetic. No other nation comes close in taking advantage of others.
Bob,agree.My pet peeve in the trade welfare/goods dept. is ethanol in gas,lets get rid of this welfare subsidy to farmers here in the US that lowers our gas mileage and without additives can screw up smaller carburetor engines along fuel lines in older vehicles.The farmers better served by potus by having a fair market without subsidies(oh yah,end milk subsidy)and having world market they compete on price and better yet quality of good.
This is small stuff in big picture and really hope things like the NK summit is a start towards a even if tiny slightly saner world that slightly safer.
American forces are occupational forces , why should Europe pay up. Fighting Islamic terrorism, what a joke. America creates Islamic terrorism as an excuse to occupy the Middle East. The refugee crisis is American made. Yankee go home.
There was never any terrorism or warring aggression in Islam before the United States came into being and almost immediately began attacking innocent Muslims along the Barbary coast.
Don’t know much about history …
You calling US stupid, Stupid?
There was never any wars or terrorism in Christianity until ……. Came along . Christian countries lived in harmony and peace with each other. It was paradise.
It’s true that millions of people were murdered by the worldly Catholic church under their Traditions called Catholicism which was Western Nominal “Christian” tyranny, heresy, hate, torture, corruption, perversion, murder, wars, etc, until Protestants were able to subdue them and establish Christianity based on the New Testament. Of course wars continued under the Kings and since them mostly under the ZOGs. Christians hate wars but Jesus did say that mankind will have the poor and wars until He returns.
Protestantism is false Christianity, it’s not even Christian . It was founded on the exploitation of people , it’s true God was greed and money. Slavery to the money lenders who Jesus despised and hated is what is the basis of Protestantism . It’s why the western world is in the position it is today. The money lenders will move on to new victims but the west is dead thanks to Zionist worshipping Protestants.
“Protestantism is false Christianity, it’s not even Christian . ”
BWAAAAHAHAHAHHAHA!!
Go suck Da Pope’s dick, ya douchebag.
Ann Barnhardt, is that you?
/sarc, I’m sure.
Great idea, let’s end NATO and pull all our troops out, saving hundreds of billions….
Yeah, and we can start with the ~ $15M a day we send directly to and on behalf of Israel. Get this fucking giant leech off our back and MAGA already.
Step 1: Declare victory in Europe. Step 2: Close every military base in Europe and deploy all assets and troops back to the U.S. Step 3: Profit.
We could even be courteous about the whole thing in step 2 and advise the Frogs and Limeys to be nice to the Bear in their back yard after we go home.
Clearly “defense” in Europe isn’t needed as they don’t pay (except the U.K.) any portion of NATO to make keeping these millstones over our necks worth the grief and expense. Some would say the U.S. doesn’t need to have a pity party and that’s true–so pick up and leave the party already.
We need to spend a lot less on defense and a lot more on de fence.
perzactly.
“Is he prepared to shut U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland and Germany, and let the Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
Yes please. This sounds like an overprotective mother saying “What, you expect me to allow my 25 year old son to go to that job interview all by himself?” The mother isn’t “helping” the son anymore than the presence of US troops, almost 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, are helping Europe.
I’m generally for free trade between jurisdictions with the same economy and governance model, but not in the food sector. A country that doesn’t produce the food staples it needs in favour of importing them from somewhere else because its cheaper is making a mistake. I’m not a huge fan of our supply management in the dairy sector here in Canada, but that in itself doesn’t have much to do with the free trade question. The fact is, if Canada eliminates the tariff on US milk, virtually all of our dairy farmers will be out of business within 10 years, or less. There might be a few specialty dairies that pop up near large urban centres where there’s enough people willing to pay a premium for local milk to make it viable, but aside from that, nothing.
So in other words: “We in Canada are for tariffs on US dairy products because we need to take care of our own country and our own people first. But we don’t like that Trump wants to take care of his own country and own people first.”
Demanding other countries open up their markets for US dairy that is knowingly and willingly being produced at a loss but for the Farm Bill isn’t quite my definition of Trump protecting his own. For a fuller explanation, I present the rare objective CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-dairy-stunningly-hypocritical-1.4701046
I have no problem with a federal government enacting protectionist measures in trade for certain key sectors as they relate to long term security or to protect (hence the word) aspects of a country/region’s cultural heritage, but don’t be hypocritical about it.
Alfred, so many things wrong with your statement,..
First of all, babies drink milk, adults eat cheese..
Secondly,.. to buy quota for ONE cow in Canada is approximately $35 000.
For one fucking cow.
A group of farmers in the Muskokas tried to use the loop hole of free trade to start a Delaware company which bought milk from the US and sold it back to the Canadian market thus bypassing the quota system.
Their barns all accidentally burnt down thanks to the Parmalat Mafia.
Michael Schmidts farm was raided by a FUCKING SWAT team for selling raw milk via a cow share program ( who BTW the minister of agriculture was a client of,..)
Canadian dairy farmers would do fine without gov’t interference and regulations.
US dairy regulations are based on subsidies on where it is easiest to make milk. Wisconsin is the best region to make milk but they sell very little of it- they are cheese heads.
The most profitable dairies are in the places least suited to produce milk,.. California, Arizona etc – they get the most subsidies.
My family in Vermont are paid to pour milk down the drain.
Nobody would ship milk from California to Canada if it wasn’t for the fucking government so stop talking out of your ass.
“A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes …. is a nation on the way down.” —article
That is correct.
=======================
“Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable.” —-article
Maybe he does. What he doesn’t understand is viable long term solutions;
—- trade wars/tariffs are never a long term solution. Maybe Trump wants to use his threats (bully pulpit) as a negotiation tool. That’s fine. But, tariffs don’t work over the long term historically. There are so many examples of this that it really isn’t up for debate.
—- the answer is in Buchanan’s first quote. We are SPENDING TOO MUCH. Trump has done nothing to decrease the debt. Has he? Debt under Trump will only increase. Same shit, different Administration.
—- Trump asking our NATO allies to pay more is a good thing. Except it doesn’t go far enough. What I mean is that NATO is a Cold War relic founded on realities that once existed but no longer, and it needs to be completely revamped … if not scrapped altogether. Only neocons and dumb people believe Russia is a danger to Europe. Occupying countries is a huge drain of resources (money, people, natural resources, etc) on the occupying force. Where is the evidence that Russia has any desire to reconstitute the old Soviet Union? There is none (don’t go Full Retard on me and mention Crimea). Also, NATO is based on WWII assumptions. For example, why the fuck do we need 10+ aircraft carrier groups, other than it projects a mere symbol of American power … but, the reality is they are sitting ducks considering today’s hyper-sonic missiles (4000+ mph) , supercavitating torpedo (250+ mph), and other high tech weapons. But, Trump is changing none of that. Same shit, different Administration.
Trump has done some good, that’s for sure. But he’ll never get over the hump fighting today’s Goliath battles using a slingshot. He’s stuck in an old old paradigm and, sadly, I don’t see that changing. Take The Fed for example ….. ahhhh, never mind, you get the point.
Stucky, you’ve been sold a bill of goods about tariffs. Don’t believe everything you read. You laughed at me 3 or 4 years ago talking about this, it’s happening now, and watch, it’s going to work. Don’t let brainwashing put you on the side of the multinational corporations that have been ripping us off. Peace
A tariff is a tax. Is yet another tax good for the economy?
Mull on that for a while …. assuming you are not brainwashed.
The Constitution was set up imagining that the country’s government could be supported by two sources, tariffs and user fees (such as charging a ship a fee for being able to dock in port; charging tourists a fee to enter the country; charging traders a fee for customs, etc.) . Apparently the Founders didn’t want a government to grow too large, having just experienced what a British Empire’s government was likely to do to folks who didn’t vote in their elections.
Our own government denizens realized they would never be able to build a government large enough to oppress the people by relying on tariffs and fees. During the War Between the States they floated an income tax to finance the armies laying waste to the South, for having the temerity to resist taxation to subsidize Yankee manufacturing at the cost of Southern agricultural exports. The income tax was dropped after the South surrendered – for a while. But greed and power lust among the government denizens was whetted by the experience of the income tax, and just fifty years after it was dropped it was back – permanently – and a Constitutional amendment (that may not have been properly ratified) put in place to keep it there.
I wish Trump would lead the charge to abolish the income tax, but that may have to wait for a second term! [yeah, I know, I wish!]
Jame, that is true history.
What if you were right and it is with tax? I’m not reflexively anti-tax. So you’re going to have to make a better Point than that
Greetings,
I agree with you but the military has been Trump’s only ally in these first 500 days. The Alphabet agencies are against him, the media is against him, the circuit courts are against him, etc. Given all that, it probably isn’t wise to gut the military at this time and, frankly, technology is about to put most of it out of business anyways. Why look like the bad guy when in 10 years most of it will be fully automated?
The coming disruption in how wars will be fought will look an awful lot like the revolution in warfare Napoleon brought about. It will overturn the old order entirely.
“You cannot stop me; I spend 30,000 lives a month.”
Napoleon Bonaparte
Trump‘s displeasure with his alleged allies is 100% justified. It is hard to explain, why America should finance the defense of nations like Germany, whose government uses its financial ressources to fund the communist terror organisations „antifa“ with 100 million Euros a year.
Germany is an occupied country, it last had full sovereignty in 1945.
Get this article to 200!!
I recall a book I read back when the Iraq war was hot called “Of Paradise and Power” [Robert Kagan]. It’s been a while but the thesis was that Europe could enjoy their socialism and the benefits it produced basically because they ceded the difficult task of world policeman to the US. While I didn’t agree with everything in the book it did mostly resonate at a time when the Europeans were on their high horse about no-war-in-Iraq. That’s not to say I agreed with US policy in the middle east but often I do want to say – STFU, you don’t get to have an opinion so long as we are your keeper. Largely nothing has changed in the past 15 years or so.
I’d love to see a world where the United States only defended her own borders. For all Trump’s bluster I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon. Probably for the best. The European continent has been pretty damn peaceful for almost 75 years, something they weren’t good at doing prior to our “occupation.” As for trade, the imbalance is only part of the problem with the US economy. When it crashes the entire world is fucked so for all the armageddon shit I read about what will happen here I’d sure hate to be in Europe with my defense partner crumbling and trading partner not buying anything on the same day.
That’s right. European “socialism” works great for mostly white ethnostates as long as rich Uncle Sam foots the bill for the coke habit. Import the 3rd word and remove Uncle’s wallet, and see what happens.
Europe is an economic rival to the USA. The US sanctions on Russia and Iran hurt Europe more. Once the US occupation of Europe is over , Europe turns east which will hurt The USA very badly. China will be the big winner. Why do u think the USA has millitary bases all over the world. The US is bankrupting itself to stop this. Basically it’s pissing into the wind.
are you guys aware of who robert kagan is?
isn’t he victoria nuland’s husband?
While people are worried about the negative impact of a trade war, it is worth noting that the US has been losing a trade war for decades. There is a reason the US consistently runs $800B trade deficits. And while GDP is not an ideal measure, it is worth noting that in the absolute worst ‘trade war’ case (we export nothing, we import nothing, all trade ceases)….our GDP goes up by $800B. That is a 4.3% growth in GDP, on top of whatever growth was otherwise happening, merely by eliminating the import/export elements of the equation. We’ve been losing trade wars for decades by not fighting them…we’ve lost so bad, for so long, that we literally can’t lose worse by actually fighting them. Every $100B of trade deficit reduction we achieve is 0.5% higher GDP growth.
China seems to have perhaps offered up a $200B reduction…that is an extra 1% GDP growth as an opening offer. The trade situation is so ridiculous that in the NAFTA renegotiations, Canada and Mexico are arguing AGAINST having higher Canadian and Mexican content requirements. They want to remain a conduit for Chinese and Europeans to exploit the US market tariff free, not actually have more industry and jobs for themselves and their people.
Rather Not, you’re one of the few with any real understanding of Economics on this thread