Trump’s creating jobs. But at what cost? I guess when you can’t see beyond your nose, you don’t consider the futures of your kids’ kids, and their’s. Ya follow, Donny? Really and truly doubt that.
One of the around 50 (!) Executive Orders Trump put his name to was the one which eases Obama era restrictions on energy exploration. Trump emphasized putting America’s coal miners back to work while on the campaign trail which is what he’s working on at the moment.
Who wants to mine coal in an underground shaft mine anyway. Regardless of Trump’s claims to the contrary, I am convinced that the only time a miner would choose to work in filthy, dangerous conditions characteristic of coal mining today – “clean” coal or not, interesting that Trump repeated that term, clean coal, three or four times during his announcement conference in West Virginia this afternoon – as I was saying, the only time a coal miner would actually choose to mine coal would be the absence of gainful employment in mostly any other field.
Trump has proven time and again that he doesn’t know and/or doesn’t care about economic theory especially when it comes to the importance of specialization in any nation’s economy. What does specialization imply?
Simply this : that nation’s produce what they are most efficient at producing, importing other goods in which their trading “partners” enjoy either Absolute or Competitive advantage. Absolute Advantage exists when Country A produces a good more efficiently and therefore more cheaply than Country B. Country A, for example enjoys Absolute Advantage over Country B in the production of petrochemical products while Country B enjoys an Absolute Advantage over Country A in the manufacture of textiles. In this case, trade theory dictates the following exchange : Country A exports petrochemicals while importing textiles while Country B exports textiles and uses the foreign exchange garnered from this sale to purchase imported petrochemicals from Country A.
Let’s say that Country A enjoys and Absolute Advantage over Country in two products (or more) under discussion. The question then becomes the following :
In which good is Country A “more better”?
For example, let’s say that Canada and Brazil are in a trading relationship for aircraft engines and petroleum. Canada has Absolute Advantage in both of these goods but is “more better” at petroleum since Brazil must import all of its oil needs, not possessing oil resources of it’s own. Therefore Canada has a Competitive Advantage over Brazil in the production of unrefined oil which would necessitate the following transaction :
Canada exports petroleum to and imports sophisticated aircraft engines from Brazil.
Brazil exports aircraft parts to and imports petroleum from Canada.
The problem which arises in the type of economy which Trump envisions for the United States is that, eventually, the U.S.A, which begins wasting economic resources – land, labour, capital – just as soon as it tells Brazil and other nations like Mexico and Canada to take the proverbial hike. This is due to the fact that the Excited States cannot produce certain goods efficiently and therefore is forced to produce them internally regardless because this is the choice made by Trump’s government when it rejects trade in the interests of promoting American jobs.
On that point just made, in the short term producing things it used to instead import will lead to a certain amount of job creation. But for how long?
Not too long for sure as surely as I’m typing this right here now, prices will rise as the U.S. practises import substitution which invariably leads to inflation and consequent unemployment. Trump is most basically borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
Like I have already said, he doesn’t know and or doesn’t care. He repeats at many opportunities that he is fulfilling his campaign promises which he is doing … and has done, except for his failure to get the American Health Care Act (AHCA) through congress. Think about that for a minute. The Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress – the House of Representatives and
the Senate – as well as the White House and they still didn’t manage to get it done. Trump, no matter whom he shackles with condemnation for the failure whether it be the Democrats, the Freedom Caucus, or Conservative Republicans, saw his “art of the deal” tank, pure and simple. He failed but I wonder if he can even think that, let alone come to grips with it.
There is also the budding scandal regarding Trump and some of his team allegedly colluding with Russaia prior to the election last November, which saw Trump’s “ascendancy”. Nunes’ trip to White House “grounds” after dark – real cloak and dagger stuff – gimme me a bloody break, will ya’ – some time is needed to sort out what happened but this is looking more and more like Watergate although it remains to be seen what laws, if any, have been broken. Watergate started off as a break-in of Democratic offices at Washington, D.C..’s Watergate hotel and ended up with the resignation of a President. Oh, would that something similar happens to Trump.
For those of you worried about Mike Pence who would assume the presidency in the case of Trump’s resignation, arrest, or any other event which makes it obvious that Trump can no longer continue as President, all I can say is one step at a time.