As We Approach D-DAY, Have Americans Considered the Ultimate Consequences?
Saturday, February 1st, is possibly the start of a continental trade war, and who knows where that can take the US.
I do not care if anyone calls this “elitism,” a plea for the “tyranny of the experts,” but did Donald Trump assemble a “brain trust”? In other words, does he have a large council of independent-minded specialists in trade, finance, economics, and related disciplines? Does he have such people to work up models for him, run through scenarios and simulations, and look at all the possible ripple effects of a trade war? Or is he just basing himself on his gut, in love with his own voice, surrounded by incompetent and opportunistic Yes men like Lutnick, Navarro, and Miller? I think the correct answer is an affirmative to the last question.
Do Americans themselves understand what is about to hit them, and how it could all spiral out of control?
In Canada, we also have a problem: too many of the analyses look at Canada vs. the US, as an isolated dyad, and ask who will fare worst when tariffs are slapped on, possibly this coming Saturday. Flawed. To begin with, it will be the US vs. Canada PLUS Mexico. Then add on the EU, likely the next target, and increasing and expanding tariffs on China—and then add on gratuitous tariffs, applied to any nation that even gives Trump so much as a funny look.
The last time the US ever did such a thing, the Great Depression became deeper and stronger in the US. Tariffs were already high on the eve of the Depression, thanks to the Fordney-McCumber Act passed in 1922, and followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. At that time, the US was not also busy trying to expel millions of illegal residents, and did not have as many large competitors as it has now. It had not been through three decades of Culture Wars, two disastrous foreign wars, a near collapse of the financial system, and a “pandemic”.
Trump meanwhile has started a new stream of “jokes,” and like his tariff “jokes,” and his annexation “jokes,” he has again gone into repetition mode: about getting a third term. He has no negative images in his mind about possible futures, and how ugly they can get...for him.
This is how he “jokes”:
And this is what he cannot imagine, in a world where the unimaginable is taking place with great frequency:
Incredible to watch all of this unfold, is how I feel, surrounded by millions who are endlessly yammering on about inconsequential matters, unaware of what may be barreling down the road toward them. I have never prayed so strongly to be wrong.
Addendum #1:
In response to my question about whether or not Trump has a “brain trust,” I received the following response from Brave browser’s AI, “Leo”:
As of January 28, 2025, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) in the current Trump administration includes several key figures. Here are some of the notable members:
Stephen Miran: Appointed as the chair of the CEA, Miran is a former Treasury Department adviser during Trump’s first administration. He holds a doctorate in Economics from Harvard University and is currently an economics fellow for the Manhattan Institute and a senior strategist for the hedge fund Hudson Bay Capital Management LP.
Kevin Hassett: Although Hassett is the Director of the National Economic Council, he has previously served as the senior advisor and chairman of the CEA from 2017 to 2019. He is known for his work at the American Enterprise Institute and his role in advising various political campaigns.
Brandon Restrepo: He is a Senior Economist at the CEA and is on detail from the Economic Research Service (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture). He has also worked as a Regulatory Economist at the Food and Drug Administration and as a Max Weber Fellow in the Dept. of Economics at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy.
Tyler Beck Goodspeed: Serving as the Acting Chairman and Vice Chairman of the CEA, Goodspeed has extensive experience in academia and economic research. He has published extensively on financial regulation, banking, and monetary economics.
Rachael Slobodien: She serves as the Chief of Staff for the CEA. Prior to this role, she was Communications Director for U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and worked at The Heritage Foundation.
Kevin Corinth: Corinth serves as the Chief Economist for the CEA. He has previously served as the CEA’s Chief Economist for Domestic Policy and as a Senior Economist. Before joining the CEA, he was a Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Stephen Miran, in particular, appears to be one of the key policy advisers and analysts. A paper of his that is discussed with considerable intensity/enthusiasm in the following addendum, is “A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System”.
Addendum #2:
A colleague sent me this link to a podcast by The Toronto Sun’s Brian Lilley, interviewing trade researcher Carlo Dade, from the Canada West Foundation, and Ian Lee, public policy professor at Carlton University. You should listen to it for yourself, and it lasts approximately 45 minutes.
My initial responses are as follow:
I follow Lilley in Twitter, and was aware of these ideas bubbling up on his side, the side of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, and those who want a less “confrontational” approach to the US (where self-defense is now marked as confrontation). Of course Lilley’s newspaper is owned by a Canadian-based company, whose stock is majority owned by “Chatham Asset Management, an American media conglomerate”. In matters of international conflict, media ownership is never a neutral factor.
Lilley’s guests read Stephen Miran and were obviously impressed, but apparently they read none of the criticisms of his paper by other economists, where they pointed out the severe errors in his work. One can get a good sample of such critiques here. During Trump’s first term, when he imposed tariffs on China, it was US consumers that bore nearly the full cost.
But what I found especially troubling is how the two guests think that Canada can negotiate with someone who says he is not negotiating anything, who is keen to violate his own trade agreement, and who keeps shifting the goalposts. Particularly strange was how they appear to argue that what Trump is doing to protect American industry is good and understandable, but that Canada should instead essentially hand over ownership of key industries to the US. That is a peculiar lack of consistency. I do not think they did well in covering their partisan leanings.
Lilley’s guests also complain about the lack of “face time” federal Canadian ministers have had with Trump’s team—forgetting that when Trudeau went in person, he was mocked and humiliated, and the visit produced no results. Nor have Danielle Smith’s visits to the US borne any fruit whatsoever: she went to Mar-a-Lago, where she reportedly had to chase Trump around, and returned to immediately say what we already knew: “the tariffs are coming”. Not one concession was made for Alberta.
Lilley’s guests says that federal officials should ask what Canada needs to do, to avoid tariffs. Has Trump not made that already clear, repeatedly? Canada can become the 51st state. Have they not been listening? The speakers did not mention Trump’s abundant reiteration of this desire, not even in passing, and one would think that Canadians would be attentive to such declarations—but not these ones, for reasons I can only guess.
As for their historical review of the “successes” of US tariff policies, their synopsis leaves much to be desired. Listen to them with a large grain of salt at hand.
For my part, I remain consistent in defending the principles of self-determination and sovereignty, at all levels, from the personal to the international. I would advise anyone against trying to negotiate with an extortionist, especially one who openly threatens your very existence as a country.
Addendum #3:
Did anyone catch the reference to Greenland, in the second clip? It may be pure coincidence, but that seems doubtful—that they chose Greenland or Alaska as the two options for the President to seek refuge. Greenland already appeared in Trump’s wish list during his first term; Alaska is a Republican state. Were such a civil war to occur, it would very soon become an international conflict. Russia would almost certainly retake Alaska, very quickly. That leaves Greenland. One wonders if Trump seems particularly anxious and desperate to acquire Greenland, for primarily personal purposes, as the site of his eventual bunker. I am just speculating, of course.