Latest news with #JF
The Age
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Jason Falinski: The Libs should reconcile with the Nats. Just not yet
Fitz: Given this last result, can you acknowledge the bleeding obvious that choosing Peter Dutton as the opposition leader in 2022 was a mistake? JF: I think that Peter Dutton performed really well, he kept the party together. He came up with some interesting policies. You know, we cannot underestimate the impact that Donald Trump had on the dynamics of Australian politics through 2025. Fitz: Jason! I've sold you to my editors as 'a straight shooter'. I respectfully submit to you that saying Peter Dutton was a great choice, and he came up with great policies is not right. I mean, what were these great policies? I can name nuclear, which was a rolled-gold disaster, a cut in the fuel excise – which generated no fewer than 17 photo ops – and getting rid of working from home for the surviving public servants after they sacked 41,000 of them, both of which they caved in on. JF: [ A little chastened. ] Yeah, look, [it did get tough] you're absolutely right. We ended up in a Mexican standoff with the ALP over who could give out more subsidies, and if you're talking about giving out subsidies, then the Labor Party is going to win that war every time, because they have more experience at it, and people believe that the Labor Party is going to do that much more than they believe we will. And so ultimately we got completely boxed in. Fitz: OK, you now run a strategic advisory firm, whatever that is. We know you think the best advice you can give the Libs is they must say to the Nats, 'Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.' My advice would be to listen to their own Charlotte Mortlock who noted that the average Liberal Party member is a 70-year-old male, while the average Australian voter is a 36-year-old female. These days, you could probably make it into the Young Liberals as a 50-year-old, so long as you still went to Shore and wear a tie. It is obvious to me, that has to change. Surely their policy star from here, has to be what will bring in young women. Do you agree? JF: Broadly. We've got to start reaching out, and bring more people of all kinds in. There's a great Reagan quote, along the lines of, 'We've got to stop talking to ourselves about ourselves, and go out there and tell the people that while we're fewer in numbers, we've got the values and principles you've been looking for.' And by the way, I don't think Charlotte's right, I think most Liberal Party meetings that I go to, it's actually probably 70-year-old women, and there are some older men, and to be fair they want younger people to come through. Fitz: Indeed, a problem. The point has also been made that in the whole of NSW, the Liberal Party does not get a single harbour view, and along the entire NSW coast from Victoria to Queensland you have only one coastal view, in Scott Morrison's old seat of Cook, which has somehow held on! JF: That's right, and that speaks to our challenge, and also speaks to why we must go our own way from the National Party. Fitz: OK, so you think it shouldn't be a trial separation, it should be a divorce, with a custody battle over who must take Barnaby? JF: [ Laughs. ] No. I do hope the couple can still get back together, but before they can, they need to deal with the fundamental issues that have driven those problems. And I don't think we should just reconcile with the Nats just because it looks better. I think we should reconcile only after we've dealt with the fundamental issues underlying the problems that we face. We Liberals now need to go and do the hard, arduous work of talking to and being in dialogue with the Australian people, so that in a year's time, when we start coming up with ideas, we have a far better understanding of what problems and what challenges they're facing. Then, and only then, should we come back together and talk to the Nationals to see what they've come up with. But I repeat: If we don't develop polices for our natural constituencies in the big cities, we will be completely lost. Fitz: Aren't you already lost? Laura Tingle has said that, basically, the Liberal Party's manoeuvred itself to be little more than an observer in the current House of Reps and that's fair. Without the Nats, you're hobbling around on one leg, and can't really run a proper campaign in an election. JF: I don't agree with you or Laura. We're still the official opposition party in the lower house and in the Senate regardless of whether we're with the National Party or not. What we need to do most of all now is look after our patch, and let the Nats go and look after theirs. Fitz: Do you agree that, whatever happens, David Littleproud's crazy-brave insistence that nuclear must stay on the table is batshit crazy when you went to the polls with that as your major policy, only to come up – dot three, carry one, subtract heaps – 50 seats behind! Can you explain how it is even possible for the Libs to get back together with the Nats if they are stuck with that insane policy? Loading JF: Look I think it is batshit crazy to lock it in for another three years without actually undertaking a fundamental review of it. But there actually is an argument that as everything turns electric, the demand for electricity will be five times what it is now, and we will only be able to meet those demands in 2050 by having nuclear as part of it. You may be right that we can do all of this on renewable energy, but there is no one else in the world that is saying that. At the moment we're relying on coal to make up the difference, but it might have to be nuclear in the end. I don't think 'nuclear with government subsidies', but you could allow market forces to come into play. Fitz: On the subject of coal, you were a strong voice against Matt Canavan's contention in 2021 that our future was coal, coal, coal. Yet I remember a recent controversy where the lobby group you are involved with, Australians For Prosperity, took $725,000 from coal interests? JF: Sure. Coal Australia is a major supporter of mining in Australia, and they represent a lot of mining communities, and yeah, they did donate money to us to help us to stand up for economic policies that are about driving prosperity in the Australian community, and I don't think we've had a lot of that in the last generation, and it's something we've got to get back to. Our group was founded on the proposition that there's too much time spent in Australian politics talking about social and cultural issues, and how do we divide the cake? And no one – or very few people in Australian politics these days – talks about, how can we actually grow the cake so everyone gets a little bit more than they've got, or a lot more than they've got at the moment. Fitz: Traditionally, that is the argument made by the Liberal Party. To finish though, is it possible that the Coalition is just … done? You know, that all of the debate, all the manoeuvres of the next three years is no more than a 'bouncing of the rubble', because the whole thing has collapsed in on itself? JF: [ Long pause. ] It's possible, but improbable. For now, we need to re-engage with our people, and listen to them – and let the Nats do the same. Then and only then should we even contemplate re-forming the Coalition. Regardless of what happens, a lot of people in this country want the government to promote fairness and stand up for the right and freedoms of individuals. If we want to survive and thrive, that is what we need to do.
Sydney Morning Herald
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Jason Falinski: The Libs should reconcile with the Nats. Just not yet
Fitz: Given this last result, can you acknowledge the bleeding obvious that choosing Peter Dutton as the opposition leader in 2022 was a mistake? JF: I think that Peter Dutton performed really well, he kept the party together. He came up with some interesting policies. You know, we cannot underestimate the impact that Donald Trump had on the dynamics of Australian politics through 2025. Fitz: Jason! I've sold you to my editors as 'a straight shooter'. I respectfully submit to you that saying Peter Dutton was a great choice, and he came up with great policies is not right. I mean, what were these great policies? I can name nuclear, which was a rolled-gold disaster, a cut in the fuel excise – which generated no fewer than 17 photo ops – and getting rid of working from home for the surviving public servants after they sacked 41,000 of them, both of which they caved in on. JF: [ A little chastened. ] Yeah, look, [it did get tough] you're absolutely right. We ended up in a Mexican standoff with the ALP over who could give out more subsidies, and if you're talking about giving out subsidies, then the Labor Party is going to win that war every time, because they have more experience at it, and people believe that the Labor Party is going to do that much more than they believe we will. And so ultimately we got completely boxed in. Fitz: OK, you now run a strategic advisory firm, whatever that is. We know you think the best advice you can give the Libs is they must say to the Nats, 'Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.' My advice would be to listen to their own Charlotte Mortlock who noted that the average Liberal Party member is a 70-year-old male, while the average Australian voter is a 36-year-old female. These days, you could probably make it into the Young Liberals as a 50-year-old, so long as you still went to Shore and wear a tie. It is obvious to me, that has to change. Surely their policy star from here, has to be what will bring in young women. Do you agree? JF: Broadly. We've got to start reaching out, and bring more people of all kinds in. There's a great Reagan quote, along the lines of, 'We've got to stop talking to ourselves about ourselves, and go out there and tell the people that while we're fewer in numbers, we've got the values and principles you've been looking for.' And by the way, I don't think Charlotte's right, I think most Liberal Party meetings that I go to, it's actually probably 70-year-old women, and there are some older men, and to be fair they want younger people to come through. Fitz: Indeed, a problem. The point has also been made that in the whole of NSW, the Liberal Party does not get a single harbour view, and along the entire NSW coast from Victoria to Queensland you have only one coastal view, in Scott Morrison's old seat of Cook, which has somehow held on! JF: That's right, and that speaks to our challenge, and also speaks to why we must go our own way from the National Party. Fitz: OK, so you think it shouldn't be a trial separation, it should be a divorce, with a custody battle over who must take Barnaby? JF: [ Laughs. ] No. I do hope the couple can still get back together, but before they can, they need to deal with the fundamental issues that have driven those problems. And I don't think we should just reconcile with the Nats just because it looks better. I think we should reconcile only after we've dealt with the fundamental issues underlying the problems that we face. We Liberals now need to go and do the hard, arduous work of talking to and being in dialogue with the Australian people, so that in a year's time, when we start coming up with ideas, we have a far better understanding of what problems and what challenges they're facing. Then, and only then, should we come back together and talk to the Nationals to see what they've come up with. But I repeat: If we don't develop polices for our natural constituencies in the big cities, we will be completely lost. Fitz: Aren't you already lost? Laura Tingle has said that, basically, the Liberal Party's manoeuvred itself to be little more than an observer in the current House of Reps and that's fair. Without the Nats, you're hobbling around on one leg, and can't really run a proper campaign in an election. JF: I don't agree with you or Laura. We're still the official opposition party in the lower house and in the Senate regardless of whether we're with the National Party or not. What we need to do most of all now is look after our patch, and let the Nats go and look after theirs. Fitz: Do you agree that, whatever happens, David Littleproud's crazy-brave insistence that nuclear must stay on the table is batshit crazy when you went to the polls with that as your major policy, only to come up – dot three, carry one, subtract heaps – 50 seats behind! Can you explain how it is even possible for the Libs to get back together with the Nats if they are stuck with that insane policy? Loading JF: Look I think it is batshit crazy to lock it in for another three years without actually undertaking a fundamental review of it. But there actually is an argument that as everything turns electric, the demand for electricity will be five times what it is now, and we will only be able to meet those demands in 2050 by having nuclear as part of it. You may be right that we can do all of this on renewable energy, but there is no one else in the world that is saying that. At the moment we're relying on coal to make up the difference, but it might have to be nuclear in the end. I don't think 'nuclear with government subsidies', but you could allow market forces to come into play. Fitz: On the subject of coal, you were a strong voice against Matt Canavan's contention in 2021 that our future was coal, coal, coal. Yet I remember a recent controversy where the lobby group you are involved with, Australians For Prosperity, took $725,000 from coal interests? JF: Sure. Coal Australia is a major supporter of mining in Australia, and they represent a lot of mining communities, and yeah, they did donate money to us to help us to stand up for economic policies that are about driving prosperity in the Australian community, and I don't think we've had a lot of that in the last generation, and it's something we've got to get back to. Our group was founded on the proposition that there's too much time spent in Australian politics talking about social and cultural issues, and how do we divide the cake? And no one – or very few people in Australian politics these days – talks about, how can we actually grow the cake so everyone gets a little bit more than they've got, or a lot more than they've got at the moment. Fitz: Traditionally, that is the argument made by the Liberal Party. To finish though, is it possible that the Coalition is just … done? You know, that all of the debate, all the manoeuvres of the next three years is no more than a 'bouncing of the rubble', because the whole thing has collapsed in on itself? JF: [ Long pause. ] It's possible, but improbable. For now, we need to re-engage with our people, and listen to them – and let the Nats do the same. Then and only then should we even contemplate re-forming the Coalition. Regardless of what happens, a lot of people in this country want the government to promote fairness and stand up for the right and freedoms of individuals. If we want to survive and thrive, that is what we need to do.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Casey's accused of joining fuel equipment monopoly scheme in 2 states
This story was originally published on C-Store Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily C-Store Dive newsletter. Casey's General Stores has been accused of participating in an illegal scheme by refusing service from one of its largest fuel servicers and distributors, according to a lawsuit filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Fuel servicer and distributor JF Acquisitions is suing competitors Seneca Companies, Owl Services and Trive Capital Management for scheming to monopolize the Iowa and Southern Illinois markets. JF claims that these companies forged an illegal agreement with Casey's so the c-store retailer would boycott JF's fuel services in these regions. JF claims that this scheme has caused it to lose millions in revenue and profits. JF is seeking damages stemming from the 'tortious interference' with its business relationship with Casey's in Iowa and Southern Illinois. JF was one of Casey's largest fuel servicers and distributors by the time the fuel servicer entered the Iowa and Southern Illinois markets in 2024, according to the lawsuit. The company said that it invested millions into entering these regions with the expectation that it 'could compete on the merits to distribute and service fuel dispensers to Casey's.' But once it arrived in these markets, JF noticed that the rate at which Casey's sought its services 'paled in comparison to the volume of business [it] receives from Casey's elsewhere in the country.' JF also claims that when Casey's was left without a distributor of Gilbarco Veeder Root fueling products last year, instead of relying on JF as it had done in other areas, the retailer began to acquire this equipment directly from Gilbarco. As a result, JF lost its ability to sell fuel dispensing equipment to Casey's not only in Iowa and Southern Illinois, but nationwide, according to the lawsuit. JF concluded that Trive, which owns both Owl and Seneca, sought to exclude JF from the Iowa and Southern Illinois markets and pressured Casey's to refuse to do business with JF in these regions 'unless absolutely necessary,' according to the lawsuit. 'The only plausible explanation for Casey's near refusal to deal with JF is that Seneca, OWL Services, and Trive have secured an unlawful agreement from Casey's to that end,' an attorney representing JF said in the lawsuit. JF also claims that J.C. Risewick, chief strategy officer of Owl and former president of Seneca, is 'a close personal friend of Darren Rebelez, chairman and CEO of Casey's,' according to the lawsuit. JF claims that Casey's shared 'competitively sensitive information' with Seneca before that company was acquired by Owl, furthering JF's speculation that the scheme was being planned. 'While Seneca may have a legitimate reason to meet with Casey's as a former customer, there is no legitimate business reason for a representative of Trive, Seneca's private equity owner, to meet with individuals from Casey's — except in furtherance of Defendants' scheme,' JF's attorney said in the lawsuit. A spokesperson from Casey's did not respond by press time to comment on the accusations against Casey's. Recommended Reading How Casey's is trying to revive its sluggish coffee sales Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Debate: Do Trump's tariffs mean the end of the post-war free trade world?
President Trump's sweeping set of tariffs are intended, in part, to protect American industries, raise money and - as we've seen - be used as a bargaining chip. The Republican has already imposed tariffs on imports from China, announced plans for a 25% duty on all steel and aluminium imports, and threatened to place 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. We don't yet know how far he will go, but if what is already on the table comes to pass then it would raise average tariffs to their highest since the 1940s, signalling a new chapter for global trade. Since the end of World War Two in 1945, tariffs have been broadly viewed as leading to higher consumer prices, less choice and – amidst the inevitable retaliation - backfiring on the industries they were meant to protect. But are we turning our backs on this era? I hosted a debate with two economic experts in trade policy to unpick the implications of Trump's policies on America and the world, and explore differing views on who among us might be the biggest winners or losers. Meredith Crowley is Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge. She believes tariffs could lead to a much heavier economic burden on the lowest income people. Jeff Ferry is Chief Economist Emeritus at the Coalition for A Prosperous America. He believes tariffs can trigger growth and rebuild the US manufacturing industry. Dharshini David (DD): President Trump described tariffs as 'the most beautiful word in the dictionary' - which is really intriguing. What's the attraction for him? Jeff Ferry (JF): I think Trump has made it pretty clear that he thinks tariffs are a 'beautiful' thing for several reasons. Firstly, because they can revive and rebuild the US manufacturing industry. He also sees the US is running a huge trade deficit. In 2024, we had a record goods trade deficit of $1.2 trillion which means the rest of the world, and particularly trade surplus countries, is generating large amounts of revenue by selling to the US market. This gives the US a powerful negotiating tool and we've seen him use that, regarding drugs and immigration with Canada and Mexico in the last few days. Meredith Crowley (MC): My presumption is that what is really concerning Trump is the decline in manufacturing jobs within the United States over the last 40 years. He observed that lots of jobs that used to exist in the US have migrated to other lower wage countries like Mexico and China and I think his hope would be that by imposing tariffs he could stimulate the creation of jobs. DD: We know countries are thinking of retaliatory measures as well. To what extent will these measures impact Trump's economic goals? JF: There is no doubt that a tariff policy, coupled with an investment and growth strategy policy and a national security policy, will grow the US economy and do a better job of delivering productivity growth than we've seen in the last 25 years, which frankly have been abysmal by traditional US standards. 500 years of history shows that the economics profession, in its obsession with short term equilibrium, has done a disservice to not just American workers and the American people, but actually, to British people and British workers - and workers in many countries. DD: In the post-war era, we saw the tearing down of trade barriers and the idea that globalisation was good. Are we now seeing a backlash against this? JF: We are seeing a historic shift away from the post WW2 consensus, which stemmed from the period when America was way ahead of the rest of the world - and America was very worried about the Communist threat. So what you call 'free trade,' and I would call the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate consensus, was designed for America to support and even subsidise the growth of European economies and other economies. We've now moved to a new stage where it's well known the US economy started to falter in the 1970s, and China has risen to become the world's number one manufacturing power basically through exploiting all the rules in the system. We need a new system. MC: I have a different diagnosis of what happened in recent history. Over the past 40 years, it's clear more protection is very popular. Between 1981 and 1994, the US restricted imports of automobiles from Japan and that ultimately had two consequences. One, it raised the price of automobiles for Americans. Two, in the long run, it led to investment by Japanese manufacturers in the US, and today, the US has a vibrant automobile industry. You could support US industry much more directly by having direct government support. Trump has now created uncertainty that Canadian manufacturers will have access to the US market in the future. And because Trump made good on his threats in 2018 to impose tariffs on China, major corporations might be revising plans to expand operations in Canada or Mexico to serve the US market. There will be a pullback on real economic activity in those trading partners. DD: Meredith, Trump has acknowledged there may be 'a little pain' for Americans in the short term because as you mentioned, tariffs tend to mean higher prices. MC: A study on what happened in round one of Trump's tariffs on China in 2018 showed, in the first two years, that most of the cost increase was absorbed by importers and distributors and it didn't get passed on to consumers. The price increases though, tend to come more gradually. Once you realise the tariff is in place permanently, the manufacturer realises everyone's going to have to pay it and they gradually raise their prices. One of the concerns economists have is people who buy a lot of goods rather than services tend to be lower income people. So when you put a tariff on things like kids' trainers, backpacks and clothing, these kinds of consumer items, you're really placing a much heavier tax burden on the lowest income people in the country, rather than somebody who's spending their money on vacations and private education for children. DD: Jeff, are you concerned about a global trade war that could backfire on Trump's aims? JF: We have been in a trade war since 2001, since China entered the world trading community. The trade war is long-standing. Now America is taking action and a lot of people are throwing up their hands, not because they are concerned about a trade war, but because they're concerned they might lose a valuable market for their own products. But I want to go back to consumer prices. People focus purely on the negative. The purpose of the tariff is to stimulate domestic industry, so on the positive side, you create brand new investments in domestic industry. On the negative side you get a price increase. So it depends critically on the numbers in both cases. What we know from round one of Trump's tariffs, between 2018 and 2019, is the price of tariff goods went up, such as steel, but companies committed to building new factories like steel mills which have hired several hundreds of people - great blue collar jobs for people who generally speaking do not have a college degree. The current phase of globalisation which began around 1990 was just a huge mistake. The idea that the US could compete with Mexico on salaries, particularly to manufacturing workers, was just crazy. DD: Lets get Meredith's view on this. Would you agree that for higher wage economies, frankly, globalisation has not been a great idea since the 1990s? MC: I understand Jeff's point, that the only concern of the president should be the wellbeing of Americans. But, between 1990 and 2023, the number of people around the world living in extreme poverty on less than $2.15 (£1.75) a day fell from two billion to around 700 million. Over a billion people exiting poverty because of increasing globalisation is an astounding achievement of humanity. It is completely clear to everyone that within American society the benefits of globalisation have not been equal and so there is a real need within the US to think about how do we improve the wellbeing of less skilled people, and how do we get jobs into the economy to help them. Where I differ with Trump is I think there are more effective tools. You need an industrial policy or subsidies to production. American productivity is so high because we are constantly investing in labour saving technology but the consequence is that the less skilled have been left behind and their lives are materially worse than they were thirty years ago. JF: I agree one hundred percent with Meredith. DD: This is fascinating. If we see the kind of trade barriers that Trump wants to put in place, what does that mean for this issue of equality? MC: Once you start putting barriers between countries you create a lot of opportunity for what in the economics world we call monopoly profits. Once you limit entry, the existing producers get to jack up their prices and exploit consumers. If the US goes into a trade war with China, what's going to happen to imports from countries the US isn't interested in having a trade war with? If the US and China deepen their trade war, this could affect the supply chain participation of sub-Saharan African countries with the US and China, meaning it is going to be one of the areas of the world that bears some of the brunt of this trade war. So the spillover effects could be very, very negative. DD: Jeff, is this a price worth paying? What kind of impact could we see on growth? JF: I don't think of it as a price worth paying, I think of it as an evolution of the world system where hopefully we'll get higher growth everywhere. And this is where I differ with the mainstream economics view which focuses far too much on trade and on minor productivity gains. The world has grown through the success of industries. The US prosperity from 1900 to 1970 was due largely to the automobile industry. What you saw was huge productivity gains as Henry Ford and all his successors invented and developed mass production. You saw wage increases and spending increases and we had the most prosperous economy in the world. So what we need is industrial growth and when you look at a national security framework, we cannot be dependent on China for as many goods as we are today. We are far too dependent on China here in the United States, Europe is far too dependent on China. So what's the resolution? Well the resolution is pretty obvious - we need to make certain goods here in the US. Produced by: Rosemary McCabe, Rhoda Buchanan and Harriet Whitehead Top picture credit: Getty Images This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
BBC News
11-02-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Trump's tariffs: Debate on if this means the end of the post-war free trade world
President Trump's sweeping set of tariffs are intended, in part, to protect American industries, raise money and - as we've seen - be used as a bargaining Republican has already imposed tariffs on imports from China, announced plans for a 25% duty on all steel and aluminium imports, and threatened to place 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. We don't yet know how far he will go, but if what is already on the table comes to pass then it would raise average tariffs to their highest since the 1940s, signalling a new chapter for global the end of World War Two in 1945, tariffs have been broadly viewed as leading to higher consumer prices, less choice and – amidst the inevitable retaliation - backfiring on the industries they were meant to protect. But are we turning our backs on this era?I hosted a debate with two economic experts in trade policy to unpick the implications of Trump's policies on America and the world, and explore differing views on who among us might be the biggest winners or losers. Meet the participants Meredith Crowley is Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge. She believes tariffs could lead to a much heavier economic burden on the lowest income Ferry is Chief Economist Emeritus at the Coalition for A Prosperous America. He believes tariffs can trigger growth and rebuild the US manufacturing industry. Trump's ambitions Dharshini David (DD): President Trump described tariffs as 'the most beautiful word in the dictionary' - which is really intriguing. What's the attraction for him?Jeff Ferry (JF): I think Trump has made it pretty clear that he thinks tariffs are a 'beautiful' thing for several because they can revive and rebuild the US manufacturing industry. He also sees the US is running a huge trade deficit. In 2024, we had a record goods trade deficit of $1.2 trillion which means the rest of the world, and particularly trade surplus countries, is generating large amounts of revenue by selling to the US market. This gives the US a powerful negotiating tool and we've seen him use that, regarding drugs and immigration with Canada and Mexico in the last few Crowley (MC): My presumption is that what is really concerning Trump is the decline in manufacturing jobs within the United States over the last 40 observed that lots of jobs that used to exist in the US have migrated to other lower wage countries like Mexico and China and I think his hope would be that by imposing tariffs he could stimulate the creation of jobs. Retaliation DD: We know countries are thinking of retaliatory measures as well. To what extent will these measures impact Trump's economic goals?JF: There is no doubt that a tariff policy, coupled with an investment and growth strategy policy and a national security policy, will grow the US economy and do a better job of delivering productivity growth than we've seen in the last 25 years, which frankly have been abysmal by traditional US standards.500 years of history shows that the economics profession, in its obsession with short term equilibrium, has done a disservice to not just American workers and the American people, but actually, to British people and British workers - and workers in many countries. DD: In the post-war era, we saw the tearing down of trade barriers and the idea that globalisation was good. Are we now seeing a backlash against this?JF: We are seeing a historic shift away from the post WW2 consensus, which stemmed from the period when America was way ahead of the rest of the world - and America was very worried about the Communist what you call 'free trade,' and I would call the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate consensus, was designed for America to support and even subsidise the growth of European economies and other now moved to a new stage where it's well known the US economy started to falter in the 1970s, and China has risen to become the world's number one manufacturing power basically through exploiting all the rules in the need a new I have a different diagnosis of what happened in recent the past 40 years, it's clear more protection is very popular. Between 1981 and 1994, the US restricted imports of automobiles from Japan and that ultimately had two it raised the price of automobiles for Americans. Two, in the long run, it led to investment by Japanese manufacturers in the US, and today, the US has a vibrant automobile industry. You could support US industry much more directly by having direct government support. Trump has now created uncertainty that Canadian manufacturers will have access to the US market in the future. And because Trump made good on his threats in 2018 to impose tariffs on China, major corporations might be revising plans to expand operations in Canada or Mexico to serve the US market. There will be a pullback on real economic activity in those trading partners. Higher prices DD: Meredith, Trump has acknowledged there may be 'a little pain' for Americans in the short term because as you mentioned, tariffs tend to mean higher A study on what happened in round one of Trump's tariffs on China in 2018 showed, in the first two years, that most of the cost increase was absorbed by importers and distributors and it didn't get passed on to consumers. The price increases though, tend to come more you realise the tariff is in place permanently, the manufacturer realises everyone's going to have to pay it and they gradually raise their prices. One of the concerns economists have is people who buy a lot of goods rather than services tend to be lower income people. So when you put a tariff on things like kids' trainers, backpacks and clothing, these kinds of consumer items, you're really placing a much heavier tax burden on the lowest income people in the country, rather than somebody who's spending their money on vacations and private education for children. Trade war DD: Jeff, are you concerned about a global trade war that could backfire on Trump's aims?JF: We have been in a trade war since 2001, since China entered the world trading community. The trade war is long-standing. Now America is taking action and a lot of people are throwing up their hands, not because they are concerned about a trade war, but because they're concerned they might lose a valuable market for their own I want to go back to consumer focus purely on the negative. The purpose of the tariff is to stimulate domestic industry, so on the positive side, you create brand new investments in domestic industry. On the negative side you get a price increase. So it depends critically on the numbers in both cases. What we know from round one of Trump's tariffs, between 2018 and 2019, is the price of tariff goods went up, such as steel, but companies committed to building new factories like steel mills which have hired several hundreds of people - great blue collar jobs for people who generally speaking do not have a college current phase of globalisation which began around 1990 was just a huge mistake. The idea that the US could compete with Mexico on salaries, particularly to manufacturing workers, was just Lets get Meredith's view on this. Would you agree that for higher wage economies, frankly, globalisation has not been a great idea since the 1990s?MC: I understand Jeff's point, that the only concern of the president should be the wellbeing of Americans. But, between 1990 and 2023, the number of people around the world living in extreme poverty on less than $2.15 (£1.75) a day fell from two billion to around 700 million. Over a billion people exiting poverty because of increasing globalisation is an astounding achievement of is completely clear to everyone that within American society the benefits of globalisation have not been equal and so there is a real need within the US to think about how do we improve the wellbeing of less skilled people, and how do we get jobs into the economy to help I differ with Trump is I think there are more effective tools. You need an industrial policy or subsidies to production. American productivity is so high because we are constantly investing in labour saving technology but the consequence is that the less skilled have been left behind and their lives are materially worse than they were thirty years I agree one hundred percent with Meredith. Equality DD: This is fascinating. If we see the kind of trade barriers that Trump wants to put in place, what does that mean for this issue of equality?MC: Once you start putting barriers between countries you create a lot of opportunity for what in the economics world we call monopoly profits. Once you limit entry, the existing producers get to jack up their prices and exploit the US goes into a trade war with China, what's going to happen to imports from countries the US isn't interested in having a trade war with?If the US and China deepen their trade war, this could affect the supply chain participation of sub-Saharan African countries with the US and China, meaning it is going to be one of the areas of the world that bears some of the brunt of this trade the spillover effects could be very, very Jeff, is this a price worth paying? What kind of impact could we see on growth?JF: I don't think of it as a price worth paying, I think of it as an evolution of the world system where hopefully we'll get higher growth everywhere. And this is where I differ with the mainstream economics view which focuses far too much on trade and on minor productivity world has grown through the success of industries. The US prosperity from 1900 to 1970 was due largely to the automobile industry. What you saw was huge productivity gains as Henry Ford and all his successors invented and developed mass production. You saw wage increases and spending increases and we had the most prosperous economy in the what we need is industrial growth and when you look at a national security framework, we cannot be dependent on China for as many goods as we are today. We are far too dependent on China here in the United States, Europe is far too dependent on China. So what's the resolution? Well the resolution is pretty obvious - we need to make certain goods here in the by: Rosemary McCabe, Rhoda Buchanan and Harriet WhiteheadTop picture credit: Getty ImagesThis transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
