15 thoughts on “Wisconsin, Trade and Section 232

  1. Moses Herzog

    Quite impressed, both with Menzie coming across smooth and well-spoken on TV, and the solid questions by the interviewer (although maybe my standard for economic commentary is low considering what state I live in, Menzie will know that from my IP I think). Some economists/professors/writers who are highly intelligent just don’t have the social skills or ability to express themselves in front of a large group or on cam (I consider myself slightly above average intelligence, but <b<horrid at speaking in front of large groups, so I am in this group). Menzie is not, he shines quite well on camera and expresses himself very articulately. If “Here and Now” ask you on again Menzie, I’d do it at the drop of a hat—you came across quite well. The interplay between you and the girl was quite good, professional, but still as if you two had conversed many times before.

    Plus Menzie, you didn’t take any “cheap shots” or digs at Trump. You stated things “matter of fact” without any type of “agenda”. That’s especially going to “endear you” to a TV audience. It’s also tough being ethnic Chinese and discussing things related to Chinese trade, it’s near to a “no win”. But I thought when you discussed it you “assigned blame” (if that’s not too strong a wording) to the appropriate parties (i.e. both countries having some part in the problems).

  2. Moses Herzog

    Menzie has stated before on this blog that he doesn’t go for the “broad readership” that Krugman goes for in his column. Menzie isn’t going for a large number of “clicks”, “web hits”, or “page views”. He’s going for a higher level of readership in terms of economics knowledge–maybe Menzie is going for at least an “intermediate” level?? Where as Krugman gets more directly political and (when not writing masterful white papers, or doing the higher level blogging Krugman used to do) writing things easier to consume for “the average” newspaper audience. I don’t think either gentleman is “doing it wrong”, that there is a place for both and a value to both approaches.

    That being said, if we only have highly technical economics posts (if we only had the “Menzie style” blogger), would we EVER “sway” the “PeakIgnorances” of the world, would we sway the FOX news fanatics, would we sway the illiterate toothless Tea Party folks, would we sway those in rural areas with a narrow purview of the world they inhabit?? I think the answer is near to an absolute “NO”.

    With that I give you this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/trumps-negative-protection-racket-wonkish.html

    1. dilbert dogbert

      Broad Readership? You, me, Pgl and some trolls. Bigly!!!!
      Full disclosure: I don’t know jack about economics.
      I come here because Menzie will engage with comments.

      1. Moses herzog

        @ dilbert dogbert
        A blog host who engages with commenters is a BIG plus. So that is a nice gesture and positive feature of this blog, I agree. And Mr. Hamilton (although a little more quiet) is kind enough to engage with readers also. People badmouth the blogosphere—but the blogosphere have given mainstream outlets more than a run for their money on many things. The fact is (if only working off the top of my head) I can mention many blog hosts by name who have broadened my education and vastly improved my life. Journalists I remember by name??—not so much. Do I appreciate what journalists do?? Yes. But the irony is journalists have this snobbish attitude to bloggers, when many bloggers have better credentials for discussing the particular topic they discuss, while journalists tend to be generalists.

        Group A= Bloggers= specialists= people who know more than 95%+ of other people, about a particular/specific topic.
        Group B= Journalists= generalists= people who know a few things (surface knowledge) about a broad number of topics.

        Who would you rather learn something from, Group A or group B?? Is that an “oversimplification”?? Maybe—and maybe I’ll give up that “oversimplification” when journalists quit their oversimplification of snobbishly looking down their nose at bloggers.

        1. Moses Herzog

          BTW, David Brooks is a classic example of a “mainstream” guy who really doesn’t know jacksh*t about anything, who will sit there taking potshots at bloggers. David Brooks is also one of those guys I was discussing here before who uses the nonsense term “identity politics”. All that bullsh*t term is, is a con-job word to convince uneducated white trash that when Republicans pass bills that hit the working class—that it is aimed at blacks and hispanics, and somehow doesn’t effect the white trash. How can a person identify this?? Because the only people who ever use that bullsh*t term “identity politics”, outside of David Brooks, National Review, Republican Congressman and the DC beltway Republicans??—the ONLY people you will ever see use this term outside of the DC beltway, are white trash convinced that government programs only go to minorities.

        2. Moses Herzog

          I lifted these 3 paragraphs in bold below, word-for-word verbatim, from a Eugene Scott authored article in the Washington Post. This is how Republicans “play” (i.e. con) white trash voters with “identity politics” all the time. And here in lies the problem with uneducated white trash going to the voting booth: They will NEVER read this article, EVER. They are too busy watching FOX news.

          “In a 60-second radio ad, the Republican’s campaign attacked Rep. Robert O’Rourke (D-Tex.) for going by “Beto,” a nickname he was given as a child and has used throughout his political career, according to The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe.

          “Liberal Robert wanted to fit in, so he changed his name to Beto and hid it with a grin,” a song in the ad says.

          But critics were quick to pounce on Cruz over the fact that “Ted” is not his given name. Cruz, whose legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz, started using the nickname when he was 13 after going by “Felito” for most of his life. His father, a Cuban immigrant, was “furious” with his decision, Cruz once recalled.”

          This WaPo article is also implicative of why many people view Marco Rubio as D**kless and a douche. Because when Rubio senses he’s losing votes on immigration or similar such, Rubio tries to pretend he’s a “white guy”—pretending to be “white” in this instance means pretending to be Anglo-Saxon.

  3. PeakTrader

    We can thank Trump later for protecting a core base in American steel and aluminum from unfair and illegal trading, creating a bargaining chip, and bringing trading partners to the bargaining table.

    The U.S. economy is most dynamic when it isn’t micromanaged by a bunch of politicians in Washington. There will always be winners and losers. Politicians should limit their influence, e.g. on correcting market failures, providing an efficient safety net, and setting minimum standards.

    We’ve been overregulated, overlawyered, and overtaxed. And, we don’t need extensive and massive income redistribution beyond the already excessive or very progressive taxes and transfer payments. There are many imbalances in the U.S. economy and our policies too often make them worse.

  4. Erik Poole

    Hear! Hear! Good interview.

    Part way through I realized that the station was part of the PBS network so unfortunately it is unlikely reach Trump’s base. Oh well……..

    1. dilbert dogbert

      There are parts of David Dennison’s base that you don’t want to waste time or money on.

  5. Erik Poole

    CBC’s The Sunday Edition has done an excellent interview with Gordon Ritchie, a former Canadian ambassador for trade and deputy chief negotiator for the original FTA.

    You can listen/download the podcast mp3 file here: https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/sundayedition-0W8Hll7L-20180309.mp3

    Start listening at roughly the 5:30 minute mark.

    “Peter Rabbit” is “Peter Navarro”, Menzie Chinn’s former boss. Wisconsin is discussed a few times in the context of retaliatory measures. I agree with Ritchie that Trump’s rhetoric is already negatively impacting Canadian economic prospects.

    If Americans travel north of the border soon and encounter barking mad Canadians, just respon with: “I didn’t vote for this ass-hole!” That should the exchange back on a more friendly, civil note.

Comments are closed.