Trade & Tariffs in American History | Yaron Brook Show

whole eight hours on trade. It was it was, I think, really cool. You know, you guys should check it out. You should go to Peterson Academy. Just use use the link that has my name in it. So I get credit for you going for me. But uh, what you what you'll get there is eight hours on trade and tariffs and the history and the economics.

It was great. So if you have a check out the Pederston Academy, I will have I think by the end of the year five courses on the Pedasent Academy Capitalism and Finance are already up there. You know a lot of people are watching those. And then there's going to be trade, and there's going to be money, and there's going to be the corporation kind of business history and uh. Those all I think, I think really good courses,

kind of cool. So yeah, take advantage of it. You can You can get an annual You pay one annual fee and then you can watch whatever you want. You can watch as many courses as you want. So h you know those five if I do a few more than just just watching my courses, will make worth the annual commitment, the annual financial commitment. All right.

a bit of trade across geography. You know. You you even see, you know, stuff coming down from northern Europe where there's nothing with a bunch of barbarians h Northern Europe trading with uh you know, certain uh Greek cities.

We're trading with the Egyptians who are trading with the Mesopotamiams and uh you know, so certainly by a thousand BC, you get you get substantial trade, and of course all of them are trading for the East with India, and India is trading with China, so indirectly there trading with China. And then by the time you get the Greek classical period, there's it's even more just explicit. You know, there's trade across the Mediterranean all the way to Spain. There's trade

up some of the European rivers into northern Europe. There's trade to India and China and Egypt, and trade robust trade is a is a a real part.

they taste. Buds are not limited to a narrow spectrum of food stuff. They discover spice and they start importing spices. Farm Asia and its spices are some of the most lucrative, if not the most lucrative, you know, trading features. So spices are coming in and and so there's a lot of trading, and then of course that evolves into ultimately into you know, somebody says black peppers, black peck and cefron and cinnamon and a variety of different of these

of these just flavors that Europeans are not experienced. Remember you're you know, in spite of tea time in England, you have had a discovered teeth in the Chinese, that discovered coffee from ultimately from Ethiopia. I mean, all the stuff that actually tastes really really good comes in through trade, right, So trade is blowing up, and then of course with the trade routes into Asia and through Africa, the Europeans

start colonizing. And part of the motivation for colonization, and I found this really interesting is the economic ideology of Melcanalism. Mercanalism really drives the idea of colonial colonizing.

Mercanalism is a philosophy. It's an ideology of trade as being fundamentally win lose, and that export and thus having precious metals flow into your country is a win, and imports, importing cotton or textiles or spices for that matter, and giving up precious matter for it isn't at loss. So the philosophy of moketalism, you know, kind of guides the various empires to.

uh you know, winning is all about. This is what winning looks like money flowing in UH and and and uh stuff flowing out. The only thing other than money coming in UH of natural resources to be able to produce the stuff.

embraces exploitations. This is wind lose, you want to make sure the other party loses. And so this is kind of the context of seventeenth and eighteenth century European trade. It's robust, but it is all done on a long premise which guides trade not to win win maximizing win win relationship with guides it towards maximizing the amount of money. You know, the European nations accumulating gold and silver rather

than the amount of wealth that they are accumulating. And there's a lot of lost efficiency, a lot of lost productivity. I mean, there's a real sense in which the industry revolution happens and it's success in spite of the milk and salistic attitudes that so many in you have look at the list. Attitudes also involve much more central planning that otherwise, and much more goment involvement in everything going around,

not just trade but production itself. And during this period there were a number of thinkers, a number of economists, and I'm intellectuals is saying, you know this, all this is wrong. It just doesn't make any sense. Trade fundamentally is win win. You guys are getting it all wrong. Molcanalism is wrong. But nobody's really listening. None of them have kind of the weight. None of them have they

fleshed out arguments. None of them have the case really worked out for free trade and for what free trade would entail until Adam Smith. And Adam Smith in the sense is a pivotal figure. Annas Smith basically you know, argues that mercualism is wrong. He criticizes their obsession with trades si pluses, the holding of gold and a A Smouth advocates, I mean, this is the wealth of nations for free trade, for competition, and really all based on the idea of the value of specialization, the value of

the division of labor. And a Smith sees how if British industry specializes in the thing they're good at, and in India they specialize in the things they're good at, and Indonesia they specializing in the things they're good at, and Africa they, you know, whatever country in Africa, individuals specialize in the things that they are good at, and then they all trade, everybody benefits. He doesn't quite have

the concept of comparative advantage. That is that is Ricardo about forty years later, forty one years later exactly who

develops that? But I mean the fundamental is division of labor and specialization, and therefore the value of trade as a consequence of division of labor and specialization, and that if trade is win win, you want everybody to specialize, and then you want a trade and you want no barriers to that trade, because any barrier to trade is a barrier of specialization, it's a barrier to division of labor. You want every human being on planet Earth to do

what they're good at. What they have what we call it will call a comparative advantage in But you want every individual out there to specialize and become an expert in what they do and then to trade, and everybody is dramatically better off. Specialization not only makes is more efficient, but also as you specialize, you become better at what

you do. You learn a massive learning curve. By specializing, you learn the topic, you figure it out, you find better ways to do it, and that increases dramatically efficiency. And ultimately, mechanization comes from specialization. You see something done, you understand how it's done. Now you can start thinking about how to I make a machine do it instead,

and this drives drives economic growth, it drives progress. Now at the time Adam Smith is writing, though England politically is dominated by the Mercatalists, and they have tariffs, they have government granted monopolies. An ansth called the Navigation Act, which is very similar to the Jones Act but worse. It basically says that if you want to enter a British port, you have to be flying a British flag. The ship has to be a British ship, only Brits

can facilitate trade with Britain. In other words, can have other navies, other other ships carrying other flags carry goods into a British port. Again, you know, kind of a monopoly for British shipping. So this is the time of really high levels of protectionism and Jurdan and Poleonic wars. It only gets worse. So seventeen ninety three to eighteen fifteen, this post Wealth of Nations was seventeen seventy six, and nobody's really paying attention. Everybody admires Adam Smith reads his

book and then ignores it. The idea of a war means to the Brits, oh, we need to become self sufficient emergency. It's not familiar. So they become even more aggressive in terms of trade barriers. Indeed, at they end of this war, limit passes what's called the Corn Laws of eighteen fifteen. They place a huge tariff on inputed grain.

And this of course is supported by the aristocrats who are their landowners, who are profiting from artificially high prices because they're not facing any competition from a global from around the world. And indeed, these laws become kind of a symbol of aristocratic privilege. And protectionist policies, and the beneficiaries are clear, more so.

more trade. I mean, the Corn Acts were particularly sensitive because they're protecting they're protecting British farmers who are basically the landowners, the aristocrats from you know, much more efficient producers of food, for example, the Americans and parts of Europe, which are producing food a lot cheaper than the than the English. And of course this is also a period in England, this is industrializing. A lot of people are

leaving the farm, they're going to the city. Supplying food to the cities becomes a major problem and a major issue. Food is expensive, People are hungry, people are poor, and it's the poor and the hungry, if you will, are part of the Russia placed on Parliament to reduce the tarots. The indudry Industrial Revolution is turning Britain into the workshop of the world. They are making stuff.

order to appease them. But during the nineteenth thirties you really get momentum, and here it's intellectual momentum, not just political momentum. In eighteen thirties you get the Anti corn Law League, which is led by by politicians slash intellectuals, and they gain a lot of strength, a lot of power. Within England. They are educating people, educate, educate, educate, just like the abolitionist movement in England and in the United States.

The primary focus was on education, and they argued the free trade with low prices, reduce poverty, stimulate the industry, and you know, through economic interdependence bring peace, which mostly works but not always. Ultimately eighteen forty six you get a serious Irish famine and a and by the way, that the people supporting the tariffs, of course, the Conservatives.

But in eighteen forty six andative Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel breaks with the Conservative Party and joins the Liberal Party and the Opposition Party and repeal the corn Laws and basically start a half century of unilateral free trade. That is, Britain becomes an island of zero tariffs. It doesn't do deals, it doesn't do deals with other countries. It just lowes tawifs to zero and trades with anybody

who's willing to trade with him. It's from eighteen forty six on they slowly repeal all the other laws and uh in spite of the battle, you know, in spite of the opposition by the aristocrats. This is a real blow to the aristocrats in England, but it's it's part of kind of the the the change that British society, British economy is going through as it enters the modern era.

is abolished. Cheap food just flows into the UK. Uh and uh, you know the United States, So that's exploding, for example, food to the UK, as do parts of Europe, Ukraine, Uh, you know Russia where there is fertile ground and they can they grow food quite cheaply, start imputting food into Great Britain. From that point on, Britain phases out all

the regulations. So in eighteen forty nine they repeal the old navigation acts that have required the goods imported into Britain or its colonies how to be transported in British ships. That is repealed. That is huge for international trade. Eighteen fifty four they repealed the Merchant Ship Act of eighteen fifty They they established sorry, the Merchant Shipping Act, which cleaned up all other remnants of any kind of restrictions on trade.

a monumentally horrific negative event in human history. It really did turn so much of the population against the values that against romanticism and arts, and against capitalism and against really liberty, and of course it sets up World War One, sets up World War two. It destroys benevolences, milelevelence, and it destroys individualism, and it basest collectivism and nationalism. The nationalist movements really come to the foray in World War One and the post World War One and leading up to,

of course the implosion of World War two. So between eighteen forty six and nineteen fourteen, Britain, which is at the heart of the industry revolution, Britain that is basically as the most important navy in the world, a navy dedicated now to free trade. Ran at some point somewhere it talks about the fact that British farm Party in

the nineteenth century was basically gunboat diplomacy. Boat diplomacy dedicated to opening up the sea lanes for trade, opening up ports for trade, making it possible to engage in araide free of privacy and free of cos and free of force. Uh And and really if a country resisted trade with the British, it's gunships would enter the port, bomb a few buildings and the rulers would change their mind and

start trading with the UK with with the bits. That was what gunboat diplomacy was like, and all in the name of free trade. It is the only country that I know of in history that has been dedicated to the principle of free trade. And in that sense it was a huge success that that the failure of Britain during this period while were it's colonies, it has spent so much money on expanding and preserving and defending and exploiting.

I guess even and its colonies that it ultimately bankrupted Britain, the colonies that I mean people today think the colonialism is what made capitalism possible. I mean, that's absurd. Actually colonialism drained the capitalism in England from resources, and the consequence of that are both socialism rose in England and of course England abandoned capitalism completely at the end of World War One. Right, World War One was a turning point for the abandonment of capitalism.

So for Britain to do to thrive, it has to

have trade, it has to have global free trade. The United States, in comparison, is huge, filled in the natural resources and dramatically growing in population during this period during the nineteenth century, and it could sustain itself in some ways because it's got so much division of labor and specialization happening within and there's so much, relatively speaking, at least, so much freedom within the United States that the United States from its beginning is far less dependent and reliance

on trade than the British Islands. Off Britain is an island, a small island at that it's not Australia, you know, and it's a small island that's dependent on trading with the rest of the world. So the comparative advantage division of labor specialization even more important in England, in Britain, Great Britain than in a big country like the United States. Now the US free trade or really the issue of tariffs, it's very much wound up in the US with the

idea of taxation, particularly at the founding. I mean, there were a lot of voices pre founding for free trade. Uh and in deep part of the rejection of British control and the British monarchy was the rejection of the British.

this is a real problem. They for variety of reasons, they't want to tax income, partially because it's it's difficult to collect, it's difficult to identify income. And I think they're posted it philosophically. It's like you're taxing work. I think they understood well enough that when you tax something, you get less of it. And this was a country that where work was admired and respected, and they didn't they didn't want to tax it. They could have imposed

a sales tax on consumption. But how do you collect the sales tax. It's very difficult to collect the sales tax because you now have to be present in a sense and every transaction there cause they're no real accounting systems, sophisticated accounting systems. It's on computerized obviously. How does the government keep track of what's being bought and what's being sold. It would take too much of an administrative headache to

impose something like that. Now, tariffs, input taxes, which is what a tariff is an import tax, is relatively simple. There are only so many ports or places of entry into the country. You put a customer's office in every one of those places, and you charge a uniform tariff on the goods coming in, and yeah, it reduces it reduces sales of those goods, but that's not a tragedy, and you gain revenue. And in those days government was so small, so small, two and a half percent max

three and a half percent of GDP. That they could raise a big chunk of the revenue from tariffs. The rest were excise taxes, like on alcohol and particular goods, where again you could control, you know, what was happening at the points of engagement, at the points of trade. You didn't have to create a massive bureaucracy to regulate every piece of everything that traded, everything that change stands. So the idea at the Constitution, at the writing of

the Constitution was that they would use tariffs. They would use tariffs in order to raise revenue. It was an indirect revenue, but it was relatively easy to collect, and in April April ninth, seventeen eighty nine.

viewed tariffs as a way to raise revenue. Both believed in low tariffs, by the way, so Madison Hamilton did not are you for very high taists. They both believed in low tws. But one of the things that shock Madison when he introduced the law is the extent to

which this became a part of an issue. This became splitting political alignment within America and the degree to which people started to advocate for tariffs not as the source of revenue, but as a way to manipulate the economy, as a way to protect industries, as a way to benefit some and who it's others. So this is really the beginning of what will become the you know, probably a very contentious issue within American politics during the nineteenth century.

different slightly different material. So yeah, if anybody is interested, you should come to Florida. Last year was a lot of fun. It was.

that I talk about. So I'll just say during the nineteenth century, there was a constant battle between using very low tariffs to raise revenue for the federal government and to fund the federal government, and between those who wanted to use tariffs in order to protect the industries and in order to stop importation. That is, there was definitely a mercantilist attitude in America. They were definitely behind the cove.

They were not at the cutting edge intellectually as the British were on these issues, which is sad because I mean, America was so much on the cutting edge of pretty much everything else, particularly politically and ultimately economically, that this is one issue where they lagged behind the British and they did not really, ever in all American history, really embrace the British system of unilado free trade, of zero tariffs, and of just opening up your market and accepting free trade.

Republican Party. The Republican Party was very much a pro tariff political party. The Democrats were the pro free trade political party. And indeed the Democrats in many respects during the late nineteenth century, in particular where the pro freedom political party po economic freedom political party that other problems, but on economics, Democrats are much better than Republicans. I think the best president of this period is is Grover Cleveland, who has two terms. He has a first term, he

loses in the second term. And he is own f vetoying a bunch of bills coming out of Congress, vetoying goum and spending, rejecting regulations, rejecting an income tax, you know, rejecting the growth of the state, and rejecting the growth of the state intervention into the economy. He is an advocate of low tariffs. He is an opponent, a political opponent. McKinley who Donald Trump praises all the time because of the McKinley tariffs. McKinley tafts were passed when McKinley was

not president. McKinley was actually Chairman of the House of Means else something it means, what's something? It means? Anyway, he was in the House of Representative House Ways and Means Committee, Ways and Means Committee, and he passed the tariffs, which a huge increase in tariffs in eighteen ninety. Same year, by the way, we got the Anti Trust bill. And during the talk in Florida, I'll tell you about the relationship between tariffs and anti trust. Why were they both

passed at the same time. What's the relationship? And again the politics are super interesting, super interesting. It was a third thing that happened during that same time, which was the negation of There was a big push by populists to make silver a part of the silver money in the United States, which would inflated the economy significantly, raised prices, would have increased the amount of money in the economy because it wouldn't just be gold, it would be silver

as well. And there was a reinformation in eighteen ninety that no the United States would stay on an exclusively gold standard, which it had been, which had been on since the Great Depression, so or since after the Great Depression eighteen seventy four, I think Great Depression. Would the

Great Depression come from? I don't know, since the Civil War, but it was after the Wars eighteen seventy four when the United States went back on the gold stand and stayed on the gold stand until nominally until eighteen thirty three, nineteen thirty three. God, I miss speaking, So you know, panic on, no panic. Grover Cleveland was probably the best, one of the best president maybe economically the best president in American history. So, and he was a Democrat, you know.

So throughout the nineteenth century, the United States had pretty high tariffs. They raised them and then they'd lower them, and then they'd raise them, and then they'd lower them because once they raised them there would be negative consequences, and the intellectual argument against them was was really strong. So it was always you know, there was a period, there was a period in which they passed tariffs in eighteen twenty four, called the Tariffs of Abomination because they

were so hated over sixty percent. It actually led to constitutional crisis, and they were lowered, and then they were raised again in eighteen forty two, and then they were lowered in eighteen forty six, so about the same time as that corn acts are appealed, and you actually had fifteen years of relative free trade until after the Civil War you get tariffs again, and then even higher tariffs

with the McKinley tariffs of it eighteen ninety. And then once McKinley becomes president, he doesn't like the tariffs he put in place, and he starts lowering tariffs. He starts cutting deals with other countries, and so tariffs are lowered, although they stay fairly high until nineteen thirteen, and then you know, around the First World War, they are lowered. In particular, they're lowered because what happens in nineteen thirteen, Well,

in nineteen thirteen income tax. The Constitution is amended to allow an income tax. And when an income tax provides is revenue. And now the revenue excuse justification for tariffs is gone. You can fund the government with income tax. By the way, do you guys know how hi the income text was when it was first passed. So in nineteen thirteen, the first income tax law passes.

Politicians keep telling people, Oh, no, it's it's it's we're not going to increase it beyond this.

So so much for the promises of politicians. Right just to remind you to use the super chat to ask questions, you can ask questions about anything, but anything I'll just a complete list. I'll just say, you know, in nineteen twenty two, high tariffs were reinstituted. I mean, there are two things in which Calvin co who's often cited as one of people's favorite presidents, two things that coplic Coolige did that very anti freedom and very bad and you know,

taint his reputation as a free marketer. One was reinstating high tariffs in nineteen twenty two with the idea of stimulating the economy, which was pretty stupid. Now, the economy was strong, but that was in spite of taris. The same thing happened in the late nineteenth century. Economy was strong in spite of the tariffs. Study after study after study shows that it wasn't the industries protected by tarifs that did well. It was other industries they.

did that are not market friendly, freedom friendly. And then, of course, in nineteen thirty smooth Holly under the Who administration. Note that both Coolidge and Hoover Republicans under the Hoover administration raised House significantly, and while they didn't cause the

Great Depression, clearly made the Great Depression worse. Clearly contributed because they launched the trade war, which had not just the United States but many other countries and made the Great Depression globally much worse phenomena than it needed to be. One of the interesting facts is that smooth Holly has never been repealed. Smooth Holly is still being in place. The way they get around smooth Holly is that in nineteen thirty four, Congress passed something called the Reciprocal Trade

Agreement Act of nineteen thirty four. And what that act did, this is under Democrat and a Secretary of State who was very very pro trade, what they did was they couldn't repeal Smooth Holly. So what instead they did is they made it possible for the executive branch to negotiate reciprocal trade deals with other countries, bilateral trade agreements, and that Congress would fast track their ratification and only require

a simple majority vote for ratifying trade deals. And it placed much more of the responsibility for tariffs on the executive PIMLI with the idea that the executive would then

go and cut deals. The executive, the assumption is, has the perspective of the good for the entire nation, whereas Congress is rife with fighting between different pressure groups who want different tariffs on different industries in different places, different times, and therefore never actually work towards freedom, whereas the president could. Now that's backfired on us a little bit with Trump,

but that was the intention. So the lowering of tariffs since nineteen thirty four, really until nineteen six, twenty sixteen with Donald Trump, the lowering of tariff has all happened in a reciprocal trade, you know, whether it's by lateral or multilateral deals that then Congress approves, and you got that through GATS and through the Trade Organization, all facilitating

this reduction. Uh, this reduction in tariffs again until Trump, so smooth holly technically still on the books, and it's just the rates that have changed visa very particular countries in particular trade agreements. All right. Uh, So that's a quick history of kind of trade tariffs of the United States and Britain. Uh and uh.

Adam Smith. Really no real economists is questioned the free trade idea, and the idea including unilateral free trade, unilateral zero tariffs, which is what Britain implemented. That idea has not really been challenged by economists at all. All right, Yeah, I mean, just imagine how rich a we would be.

Imagine how richer we would be if we didn't have tais during the nineteenth century, or at least if we didn't have tais beyond the minimal tasks required for revenue, and if we'd embraced free trade in the post World War two period completely unilaterally, unequivocally. I mean, there were a lot of things like that. Imagine if we didn't have regulations, right, I mean, there was already business regulation

in nineteenth century. There was a lot of business regulation during the twentieth century post World War Two, and we became the number one economy in spite of all of that too. So does that mean the regulations are Okay? We had horrible tax regimes like income of text to seventy seven percent and the year's economy still grew. Does that mean that those taxi teams didn't hurt the year's economy growing? You have to be able to control those for those factors and realize that even a little bit

of freedom goes a long way. You can see that in China. China got a little bit of freedom, a little bit of economic freedom in the post nineteen seventy eight period and it grew a lot that I mean once one should view that as well. Imagine how much more they would have grown if they had complete freedom. And I think that's true of the United States in spades even more so. All right, we're approaching the end

of the first hour. I'll remind you that we have goals for these shows because you guys fund the run book show. It couldn't exist without support from you. So we have a goal of two hundred and fifty an hour, and we're about halfway there. So I encourage you, uh for for the first hour and we're going into the second hours. I encourage you to step in and participate and support the show and support what I am doing, what all of us are doing. Uh So, please consider

doing a sticker or super chat. That would be fantastic. Althoso remind you that the best way to support the show is is by coming a Patreon or a PayPal monthly contributor. You just go in and search for your on Book Show and PayPal, Patreon, or go to my website your on Book Show dot com and and you can you can find ways there to contribute and become a supporter of the show on a monthly basis.

is good enough. Yeah, it's good enough, but it's also boring and bland as compared to what it could be, what it could be, So yeah, go find a good chef who really knows how to cook a steak and knows what to put on it, knows what spices and stuff to put on it. And anyway, making something spicy is always going to improve the flavor no matter what the food is. And what the spices do is they bring out the flavor of the beef so much better. And certainly a steak needs salt, a little bit of salt.

But you know, you can have a steak with coffee rub it is so good. And what it does is a lot of times by coating it with certain spices you get the juices captured. It captures the juice is much better and it just adds fantastic to the flavor of the beef.

of energy. So check out alex Epstein dot substack dot com. Alex Epstein dot substick dot com doesn't cost you anything to subscribe. You can support him financially as well, but it doesn't cost you anything to subscribe. And then finally Hendershot Wealth, hendershot Wealth dot com, slash ybs. They have

a number of really interesting products. The latest product is this product that you can access that really does a good job delaying or significantly reducing you're exposed to capital gains taxes if you have if you have a lot of capital gains exposure, you've got some stock that's appreciated a lot, you want to sell that stock, or you're living off that stock, or maybe it's bitcoin, or maybe it's some other asset where you've got a lot of

capital gains there, or a business that you're going to sell. There are really now some pretty cool sophisticated financial methods tools portfolios that can really help you reduce your tax bill. And we're all for reducing taxes at day on Book Show, So check out my interview with Robert Handershot on YouTube where we explain exactly what happens and how it works and how it's done. And check out the website hand a Shot with two tease, hand a Shot, Wealth dot com, slash ybs.

character well, and I trust him completely. So yes, check it out hand ashot, wealth dot com, slash ybs, and check out the video with me talking to Robert Handershot on my YouTube channels. It's under the sponsors playlist, so you'll find it there. All right, Let's see what else did I want to say? Yeah, I wanted to thank Barry fifty dollars stick. I thank you Barry, really appreciate it. They got us closer to the one hour goal, but we still still need some work there. Guys, John, thank

you for the sticker. Really appreciate it. DF thank you for the sticker. Nature Observer, thank you. Let's see who else? I think I saw Jonathan honing you always is Day. Yeah, there's Jonathan and Donna. Thank you guys, Thanks everybody for the sticker, for the support. I appreciate it. All of you will watching right now, whether you're on if you're on Twitter, coming over to YouTube. You can support your show on YouTube or go to Patreons support the show there.

And if you're watching right now, just do a stick at two dollars ninety nine cents.

I mean it is a form of a prison. It's a form of a cognitive psychological prison, and it makes it very difficult for people to take risks and to express themselves and to really manifest themselves. Yeah, it's sad that people care as much as they do about what other people think of them and think of their ideas. Andrew, you gave a great answer on motivation by love yesterday. Many do achieve material success or prestige based on negative motivation.

But to objectivism, moral success is happiness, and for that one needs motivation by love. Yeah. Absolutely. And look, I think if you watch successful individuals in any field, you can differentiate the ones that were motivated by fear and the ones that were motivated by love, by just their attitude, how how much joy they get out of what they do. I mean, take somebody like Steve Jobs and comparing to other you know, others who are being successful, and he exuded a.

by love. They work unbelievably hard. They you know, and they and they love the products that they build, and they and they love the businesses that they build, and it's it's it's a positive motivation.

of course the pounds. Sterling was the global currency, global money, the reserve currency of the world in the pre World War One era. That of course shifted to the dollars. By the end of World War Two, the dollar was a reserve currency of the world. James, If Trump actually loses his mind and orders those nuclear submarines to launch, what does generals and people around Trump stop him? Could humanity end over the whims of a narcissistic manchild with

too much power? Yeah, it could, you know. I don't know who would stop him. I assume they would, because as crazy as jd Vance and some of the others Hegseth and some of the others are around Trump, I don't think that that crazy, and I think somebody would try to stop him and would make a real effort. But my real wary is that this is the beginning of a slippy slope of fatat of soda rattling that might not lead to warn the short run, but it just create an environment of war that is very very

dangerous and very very difficult to get out of. Now, there are ways to deal with Russia. I've articulated. Some of them do not involve a nuclear threat. All you have to do is I'd shut down the embassy in Russia, I bring my in bess at home. I would, you know, massively arm the Ukrainians, and I would tell Russia that you know for now the United States is completely committed to Article five of NATO and will participate if he invades a NATO country. And that's it. That's all you

have to do. We don't have to play tit for tat on Twitter. You don't have to comment on anyvy stupid thing, Madvedev says. Just cut off diplomatic relations, reconfirm your dedication to Article five of NATO, and armed the Ukrainians the teeth. And just if you arm the Ukrainians to the teeth, you'll achieve much of what you need to achieve. There's no point in this again, saber rattling. Oh you want to talk about war, I'll show you war.

Very dangerous, very dangerous, Andrew. Some resent the optionality of trade. The Brital self esteem can handle and know they want to force values on others, but trade and force the opposites. The antagonism to trade is a sign of fertility and fear. I think that's right, but it's more than that. They also want They're afraid of trade, they're afraid of competition, they're afraid of the other, and they really do view

the world as zero sum. So if the other side is gaining by getting our dollars, we might be losing.

to see the extent of which it's universal now. The right is embraced it just as much as the left, even detached from the galiarianism the left. All right, let me just remind you again, value for value. You're listening to show. We've got almost one hundred people listening and one hundred and sixty people on Twitter, and you get the show. Where's the trade? We're talking about trade. Where's

the win win trade? So the one way to exert a win win trade is to come onto the super chat and make a small contribution, ask a question or just do a sticker with a contribution, and you can do that for on your phone. You can do that on the computer. It's pretty easy to do. Just press that dollar sign underneath it and you can get it all rolling. Of course, if you don't want to get involved here, you can go to Patreon, or you can

go to a PayPal. Patreon I think is easy for easier for everybody, and you can set up a monthly contribution for the one book show show funded completely by you. Guys, doesn't exist without you, and of course you gain value from it. Value for value trade, that's what it's all about, all right. Dan says, Ran might have not given us the answer with objectivism. But today it is clear, however,

how evil altruism is. And she was spot on, and well, I happen to think that grand did give us an answer with objectivism to pretty much most of our burning questions, most of the big issues in philosophy. Iron ran as sould with objectivism. And it's not surprising at all that you can now recognize the evil of altruism. She couldn't have. I mean, part of that is because what she built

was a uniform it was a systematic, integrated philosophy. And the fact that she was writing on altruism suggests he's writing on other things egoism, for example, capitalism, reason as man's basic means of survival. All of that is implied by her being right on altruism. So I think, I think you need to think rethink your view of rand there. Whops, what am I doing? All right? Liam? From what legal experts of you have told me, it is likely the Supreme Court throws these teriffs out.

think what Trump is doing is a real reach. And given that this court is concerned about division of power, concerned about, for example, regulatory agencies doing things that are not in the law, and therefore have done away with Chevron and may basically change the way we view regulations, it would be in consistent of the Court not to say things about the same thing about the executive You know, basically, the law Trump is using does not give him the authority.

The tariffs that are put in place based on national security, for example, will not be covered under that lawsuit. So steel tariffs, aluminum tabs, car tariffs, a bunch of other taps will not be covered. But these reciprocal tabs, those are the ones be thrown out. But if that is abolished, and if interest rates I think will come down. Yeah, even if interstates don't come down, I think just tariff going away, an AI innovation accelerating. You got a golden

era in front of you. Frank, what is free trade zone? Some tell me it's being able to pollute the air, dump in the water, making.

And you see that all over the world. You see Manaos in Brazil has a free trade zone. It's a city in the middle of the Amazon. It's almost impossible to get to this city. And they have massive industry there. And that massive industry there because the only place in Brazil that has a free trade zone, so you know, a lot of capital came in and they built auto companies, built manufacturing plants and everything else. And the cars coming out of there really cheap because there are no towers

placed on them. Within Brazil, oh, no tabs were placed on the stuff coming in to make the cars. And it's it's a relatively cheap place to live. It always was because it's no the Amazon, but it's it's very inefficient if you want to if you do trade zone, free trade zone, you want to do it like next to a major port. Now, it's true that in some places because because of the local regulations, there's a lot less pollution regulation and there's a lot less building regulation.

But that's good. We're against regulations. So you get an opportunity to build cheaply, and you build and to provide people with jobs and to create wealth for the local economy and and and uh yeah, and and create industry where there wasn't any industy before. And it's a win win, win, win win for everybody. And yeah, you know, nobody has ever industrialized, any country ever industrialized anywhere in the world without polluting. Pollution is a minor cost of getting rich

through industrialization, and there's no other way to get rich. Frank, do you think that scene in Dirty Dancing when Bully praises the fountain head hurt the objective's movement? Also, was Charles Lawton the best film actor ever? No, I don't think it hurts. I think anytime you get a mention of one of her books in a major media platform, it's a win. Some people are going to be curious, they will go and check it out and and maybe by it, and that's a win. So few publicity is

always a win. Is Charles Lawton the best actor ever? Maybe he's definitely one of the greats. You know, I'm not in a position to say he's the greatest of all time. But Charles Lawton certainly is one of the great actors of all time, no question about that. Jeffrey, thank you for the sticker.

on Tuesday. So maybe tomorrow. Definitely a show on Tuesday. Have a fantastic weekend. Don't forget a sign up on Patreon to become a supporter of the show, and I will see you all. If not tomorrow, then next week. Bye everybody.