Nailing History
Introducing "Nailing History," the podcast where two friends attempt to nail down historical facts like they're trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the manual. Join Matt and Jon (or Jon and Matt) as they stumble through the annals of time, armed with Wikipedia, Chat GPT, and a sense of reckless abandon.
In each episode, Matt and Jon pick a historical event that tickles their curiosity (and occasionally their funny bone) and dissect it like a frog in biology class—except they're the frogs, and they have no idea what they're doing. From ancient civilizations to modern mishaps, they cover it all with the finesse of a bull in a china shop.
But wait, there's more! In between butchering historical names and dates, Matt and Jon take a break to explore the intersection of history and pop culture. Ever wondered if Cleopatra would have been a TikTok sensation? Yeah, neither have they, but that won't stop them from imagining it in excruciating detail.
So grab your popcorn and prepare to laugh, cringe, and possibly learn something (though don't hold your breath). With Matt and Jon leading the charge, "Nailing History" is the only podcast where you're guaranteed to leave scratching your head and questioning everything you thought you knew about the past. After all, who needs a PhD when you've got two clueless buddies and a microphone?
Nailing History
128 Tariff Town: The Trade Wars (feat. Mark C.)
Ever wondered how the decisions of a century-old presidency still ripple through today's political landscape? Join us for a lighthearted yet insightful exploration as we kick off with a playful exchange about my co-host John's infamous procrastination and his so-called "990 effect." But it's not all laughs, as we dive into the serious impact of Grover Cleveland's presidency on Native American policies. Reflecting on the Dawes Act of 1887, we dissect intentions versus outcomes, and grapple with the ongoing struggle of evaluating historical figures through a modern lens.
Our journey through economic history uncovers the often misunderstood world of tariffs. We trace their roots from Henry Clay's American System to modern trade challenges, including the turbulence of Trump's trade war and the Biden administration's strategic maneuvers. Through witty banter and thoughtful analysis, we illuminate the power and pitfalls of tariffs as tools for both economic growth and political strategy. Whether it's the nullification crisis or the shifting ideologies within American politics, we highlight the ever-present battle between free trade and protective barriers.
Finally, we reflect on the broader implications of government spending throughout history. From the post-World War II economic boom to contemporary issues like military funding and welfare programs, we connect past and present, weaving in cultural touchstones like Billy Joel's "Allentown." Ending on a note of gratitude, we embrace Thanksgiving's spirit, cherishing our audience's curiosity and inviting them to continue exploring how history shapes our world today. Join us as we unravel these complex topics with humor, warmth, and a dash of Thanksgiving cheer.
I almost forgot how to which buttons to hit, for that it's been so long. Uh, hey guys, fans, welcome to the next installment of the nailing history podcast. Matt here along with the show's resident amateur history enthusiast, john n. Thank you for having me back, happy to be well, no, you don't say that when you're part of the host.
Speaker 2:Well, that introduction I couldn't be sure I said you were the resident but resident can imply like I might be here one day, gone tomorrow that's not what that means at all. I'm happy to be here and I'm excited for this topic, but I do want to say I appreciate your efforts and I'm excited for another show is this a response to our chat?
Speaker 1:g? Gpt fueled argument over the past weekend it got pretty heated.
Speaker 2:It was a doozy of an argument, that's for sure.
Speaker 1:Just to give you a little bit of backstory for the fans. They get a little behind the curtain view of what I deal with. John sent me an article for what we're going to talk about today. We won't get into that right now, but John sent me an article for what we're going to talk about today. We won't get into that right now, but John sent me an article to read on Friday and then I read it. Of course. He sent it to me, so of course I read it. I read it on Saturday. He sent it to me late on Friday. I read it on Saturday and we were supposed to record on Sunday. I prepared all day Saturday. I was all ready to go. Sunday morning.
Speaker 1:John text me and says hey man, I'm going to be in town on Wednesday. Why don't we just do it in person? You want to just wait to do it in person? And I said yeah, I guess that'll work if you want. He's like yeah, because I really want to read the article that I sent you. So he sends the article, doesn't read it.
Speaker 2:I mean it is what it is. I was running all over the place on Saturday. I didn't get a chance to sit down for a second to myself. I just felt like I was all over. I didn't have a chance to sit down and read like a academic article on the subject which we're going to crack into today.
Speaker 1:So I took it upon myself to ask ChatGPT why do you think my co-host of a history podcast sends me articles to read but then doesn't read them himself? Chatgpt responded ah, classic co-host dynamics. There are a few possible reasons Delegation genius number one. Number two. Time optimism, number three. The 990 effect, number four strategic chaos. Now, the 990 effect. I don't know if that is an actual thing or if that's just a total shout out to your SAT scores.
Speaker 2:First SAT scores. I sat the exam multiple times.
Speaker 1:No, but is the 990 effect something real? Or has ChatGPT learned about your SATs? I didn't put that in, I don't know when I I may have at one point been like, hey, is it a good idea to start a podcast with somebody who got a 990? So does it remember that? Maybe it's like self-learning and that's like they call the 990 effect, which for your fiance, had she been have, maybe she's listening, or any of your family members or, you know, maybe future in-laws or anything. Maybe when john acts like a buffoon, maybe we just start calling that the 990 effect. I kind of like that idea.
Speaker 2:I don't also know why they call it that. It doesn't explain what it is. What's's the 9-9? I'm seeing 9-9-0, something that must mean. I don't know what that means. You think it's just a play?
Speaker 1:I think it's making fun of. Yeah, I think it was a joke on your SAT scores.
Speaker 2:I just want to keep it a little fluid. We just have kind of those bracket points, big bullet points we want to hit. I really think that's the 990 effect talking right now. Hey see students around the world. Let me tell you I wasn't a student in school, I just ASATs, just tripped me up a little bit. But that goes back to my, you know, cat exams in third grade. I didn't do great on the battery score. I didn't do great on those either, just never a good standardized test taker.
Speaker 2:That's the best number one excuse Thinking outside of the box.
Speaker 1:That's the number one excuse of somebody who's just whatever, Anyway. So just doing a little bit of We'll clean out the junk drawer, as we say for the podcast, we did get a fan mail. If you remember our last episode, we talked about Grover Cleveland and his, his rise to fall and then re-rise in presidency in the late 1800s as the first president to do non-consecutive terms.
Speaker 1:That's right and in the in the wake of the current situation that our country has ourselves in, and we got a question which is actually somewhat related to we're in November, we're around Thanksgiving. I'm not sure exactly when this episode is going to release because of the delay from John not reading his article that he sent me, but I think it's probably going to be a little bit after thanksgiving. But the thanksgiving time you're always thinking about, you know, the native americans obviously. Then thanksgiving celebrates some made-up dinner that the pilgrims had with the um, with the native americans, and when everything was cool, um, then it.
Speaker 2:Whatever time, yeah so sit down dinner anyway.
Speaker 1:So the question that we got, john, maybe you'd be curious. I don't know if you had the answer to this how did grover cleveland's presidency slash policies affect native americans? Do you have any answers?
Speaker 2:oh, I would say uh, over much of the 19th century. Well, probably since the Pilgrims came and since the Europeans descended on North American shores, I think, native American policy in its various stages was fraught with some difficulty.
Speaker 2:We had a clash of civilizations I don't think anyone can really argue that by the 1880s, when Grover Cleveland was president, yeah, I think a lot of the Native Americans. They were in a tough spot. Some of them were more pacific, others were a little more aggressive. I think it wasn't a shining spot uh at this time for for people like grover um what are you getting at?
Speaker 1:you're rambling, I'm trying to just. How did his presidency affect, impact the? How did his presidency or policies impact the native america?
Speaker 2:on his first inaugural address, he said that there's we owe it to the native americans a guardianship, with efforts to improve their condition and enforcement of their rights. He wanted them to culturally assimilate, which I think by this time it was just the reality. Like, all right, we're going to win, the land is basically ours and you guys are still here, but, yeah, we're going to just. This is our thing. I don't know, this caught me off guard. I didn't read the fan mail before you tell me what you think about old Grover Cleveland. I know he's not perfect. Is it better than Andrew Jackson, though? Did you do a better job than Andrew Jackson, you think? Trail of tears?
Speaker 1:I truly don't know what you were getting at at all with the last three minutes of you rambling about nonsense. I'm trying to set it up.
Speaker 2:You're trying to paint a bot. Paint a picture of a man in eight years as to how he his policy towards something it's like. What's the background? You don't need to know the background.
Speaker 1:The question was how does, how did his policy affect native americans? It wasn't. Oh, what does grover cleveland think about native Native Americans and how does he feel and how do his feelings make him think about things it was. How did his presidency impact the Native Americans? The answer is in 1887, under President Grover Cleveland, the federal government passed the Dolls Act, which wasver Cleveland. The federal government passed the Dahls Act, which was a way for the federal government to cut up land that the government stole from the Native Americans originally. And they cut it up and gave a certain amount to the heads of each Native American tribe for them to farm and assimilate into the rest of the country. It was all about assimilation. Right there you go now. The native americans weren't super juiced about it because it was their land to begin with.
Speaker 2:Their opinion was their land maybe not all of them either. Somewhere maybe four more for it than against it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm sure some of them were, but you know they got 160 acres of farmland and 320 acres of grazing land, but only if they agreed to you know this bill. And then they had to register to the town or whatever the government and they had the whole thing.
Speaker 2:So well, he also backed him up because I'm reading here now now I'm sorry I didn't read the fan mail, but months before grover cleveland's inauguration, 1885, president arthur opened four million acres of winnebago and crow creek indian lands in the dakota terry dakota territory to white settlement by executive order. Tens of thousands of settlers gathered at the border of these lands, prepared to take possession of them. Cleveland believed that republican arthur's order to be in violation of treaties with the tribes and rescinded it on April 17th of that year, ordering the settlers out of the territory. He sent in 18 companies of army troops to enforce the treaties and ordered General Philip Sheridan, at the time commanding general of the US Army, to investigate the matter. So I would say, compared to his predecessor he was better on Native American policy and I think he saw them as people and he wanted the enforcement of the treaties that were on the books. So he's better than the Republicans at the time, like a lot of things he stood for.
Speaker 1:The question wasn't for you to defend Grover Cleveland, which is what you're automatically doing. He was like Well, it wasn't bad, it wasn't great either. I don't think. Well, it didn't ask for your opinion. It didn't ask for your opinion. It asked what was the effect? What was the impact?
Speaker 2:Well, not great.
Speaker 1:You get so possessive of your weird takes of presidents that you take any question about even just what they did during their presidency as a personal attack on you.
Speaker 2:It's so weird dude. I live with them in my heart, in my soul. It's really weird.
Speaker 1:You're more loyal to these dead presidents that you're obsessed with than most people are to people that they deal with on a daily basis.
Speaker 2:I feel like there's probably some truth to that.
Speaker 1:It's crazy. So basically assimilation, assimilation, the short answer basically assimilation, assimilation. The shorthand would be assimilation, and a lot of it had to do with the Dahl's Act, which explicitly wanted to divide the nations so that there wasn't that cohesion between tribes. Divide and conquer, as they say.
Speaker 2:You think that was the? It's the. That was the implied goal of the act and not just the consequence, because I'm saying here land tenures into government private property rights and they wanted the native americans to assume a capitalist and proprietary relationship with property that did not previously exist in their cultures. Now, okay, yeah, assimilation, and they they kind of maybe forced them, but might have been coming from a halfway decent place, they could have just said we need to exterminate these people. On a more proactive level Could have been worse. Sure, now fast forward to the founding of Oklahoma, when all the Indian territory was settled and then we had, well, the Sooners come in. But who was president then? When did the Sooners arrive in Oklahoma? 1889. Oops, I guess that was under Cleveland's watch.
Speaker 1:Whoops, I'm not asking you, no one has asked you to defend this man, grover Cleveland. I think we can all agree that he was a man of his own time. So you can't really judge him for his actions. As Chris Harrison might say, a bachelor fame, if anyone's familiar with that interview. You can't really judge him for now with what you know, whatever. But in reality that was how he impacted Native Americans.
Speaker 1:The question was never if he was a good or bad person. It's to look at what. If you want to judge what happened as a good thing or a bad thing, you can look at that through your current mindset of like that wasn't very fair to the Native Americans. But with your current mindset you can't say, oh, grover Cleveland was a terrible person because he did that, because you don't know, he could have still been, but you don't know. But you can look at it like, yeah, this was good, this was good. There's vetoes, blah, blah. I'm a big fan of all that stuff, but yeah, that Native American stuff was lame, not a good thing. Do you hold it against the man? Probably not, but it's not a good thing. You can't just defend every little thing that you don't defend things just to make yourself feel like you're wrong by liking him.
Speaker 1:Fair enough. I think they called it the 990 effect.
Speaker 2:Oh boy, it comes in waves.
Speaker 1:It comes in waves, All right, Chris Harrison let's change the subject here before we get canceled, before we even get started here. But yeah, so that's. That's a good summary of how, grover Cleveland, I hope we answered our fans question. I probably you probably didn't get the answer that you would have expected a little, a little, uh, roundabout answer, but um well, I just think okay.
Speaker 2:I'll stop. Yeah, that's a good idea.
Speaker 1:So now that we're all caught up on our fan mail again, every fans make sure that if you, if you have any questions like that or any clarifications or need anything for us to chat about, you want us to chat about it and kind of dissect it on air for you, just shoot us a text, hit that little link in the button and don't delete what auto-populates in the text. Just hit the button. A bunch of random numbers are going to come up. Just start texting. Right, just make sure that you don't delete those numbers. Don't delete it. Don't do it. It says do not delete, so don't delete it. Just leave them there and move on. Start typing. Don't worry about the numbers, just start typing. We'll get your fan mail and we'll get it on air. Happy to get. We don't miss a single message. It all gets read by the host of the show.
Speaker 2:Host and resident.
Speaker 1:So I guess I really want to preface this part of this segment of the show, if you want to call it. I really want to preface this part of this, this segment of the show, if you want to call it. I really want to preface this as saying that, like John and I don't really know a ton of what we're going to be talking about coming up right. Be upfront, we know the broad, we're going to hit on the broad strokes of stuff. We may miss some details, we might get some details wrong, but the overall general storyline here I think we have it pretty nailed down. So I mean, I don't have my, I have no background of business economics.
Speaker 1:I took one class in economics, skated through it. The only thing I remember from economics is opportunity costs. It's the only thing I remember, maybe a little supply and demand. John has a degree from the great University of Syracuse, the School of Business.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:You give that a shout out, what's?
Speaker 2:the name of it Shout out Whitman Celebrating 20 years Whitman.
Speaker 1:Where my Whitman's?
Speaker 2:at Just got a brochure celebrating 20 years, where my Whitman's at got a brochure celebrating 20 that Whitman sampler.
Speaker 1:Love you, whitman. You got a 20th anniversary what like brochure?
Speaker 2:apparently the building's 20 years old. Oh, I don't know. The business school is 20 years old.
Speaker 1:I think it would be because, like that, some it was that new?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I guess so some alumni. Name must was that new, yeah, I guess so Some alumni named Whitman.
Speaker 1:That must have been tough to get into and out of, but, John, I mean, I guess. So basically, we're going to be talking about the history of tariffs. Tariffs have been a big deal in the news and all this election stuff, and my sister made a point that maybe we should have talked about this before the election, which she probably has somewhat of a point. But whose votes were we going to sway you?
Speaker 2:know and I didn't take an economic history course, which is kind of more so what this is. We're not going to try to hit it from like a this is what this thing does Like. We're looking at it more from a historical lens obviously, lens, obviously. And um, we're just going to give it a best, our best shot.
Speaker 3:I'm a popular amateur historian, the enthusiast a popular like popular history, not popular people listen to me um and yeah, we'll see where it goes.
Speaker 1:I think we got a good one planned for you all right, so yeah, so tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. It's all we're hearing about the talk of the town, right, tariff town, you might say, and I don't know, it's weird because you never really hear about tariffs. It's a more, it's a scarier word than taxes, I think. Definitely stronger.
Speaker 1:I think if you say tariff, you're like this guy means business. When you say tax, yeah, okay, whatever, yeah, the two F's, it's. It's a little bit of a scary, scary phrase and it, but it basically just means duties on imported goods, yeah, so like when you get off of a cruise ship and you pay taxes on what you're bringing into the, into the country technically would be a tariff, I guess what's more a smaller good, but we're talking, we're tough, but we're talking that's like just in jet, but in reality it's.
Speaker 2:It's a shipping, it's like big, big sneakers electronics everything that we bring into the country from China. Taxes on imports, usually with the stated purpose of two handed generating revenue for the government imposing the tax or using it as a way to protect domestic industries from lower cost foreign made goods.
Speaker 1:Right. So basically making imported goods costs be less competitive in the country of the tariffs In this case it's America, so that it's more the general population we were able to afford to take away the competition for domestic industry and kind of effectively force the hand of consumers in that domestic market Domestic consumers.
Speaker 2:That's what I was looking for In that market to buy domestic.
Speaker 1:American-made goods. Let's leave it, let's keep it to America, because it just makes sense American goods.
Speaker 1:But I mean, it's not like tariffs. There's never really been like a zero. There's always been some level of tariffs on imported goods, aside from there's a couple countries where the US has free trade agreements with. But when you're not a part of that, there's some low tariffs in general. A trade-weighted average import tariff of 2% has pretty much been the standard up until recent. Just so you know the countries that the US does have free trade agreements with.
Speaker 1:We got Australia, bahrain, central America, chile, israel, jordan, morocco, mexico, canada, not for long, oman, peru, singapore, colombia, korea and Panama. Now Mexico and Canada has been back and forth, especially over the 17, 18 years where you call these. So basically the most recently, which we'll get into Trump started these tariffs, starting raising tariffs on China or whatever, and you're the I think I don't know if economists are calling this, but the general consensus call this the trade wars, right, right. So we're in the middle of a trade war and Mexico and Canada have been like in and out and then just recently, just a total gift softball given to the given to our podcast is like Trump just recently came out and said I'm going to tariff Mexico and Canada 25%, yep.
Speaker 2:So it's very much in the news and very much a fluid situation, it seems like, and still to be seen, I believe he's going to do it, but it makes great um like fodder for like kind of forcing your not adversary but people to do something you want, when you threaten something like that well, that's like.
Speaker 1:It's almost like well that to get into that. It's really that's kind of what trump is using it as he says negotiation tactic cultural tariffs.
Speaker 1:Right, it's really a good way to explain it. It's like an ethical tariff. You know you're using it. Trump thinks that using tariffs is a way to keep world peace, which we'll get into. Most economists think the opposite, where free trade is the way to achieve world peace, which probably makes more sense. But Trump thinks that I can stop every war by just threatening with tariffs. But that's really sweet, because we have enough clout to do it. We do, yeah, but like who's paying that? Okay, great. So the american people? Because you, because you don't want to negotiate, or like play their game, I don't know. Anyway, we'll get into that, but just to get through, so just to really talk about a little bit more of the current tariff situation that we're into. I don't know if anybody really knows, I don't know a ton about it, but just to give a little brief summary 2018, trump started saying China, specifically, is conducting unfair trade practices Effectively dumping cheap products into the US market.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you think about Timu, basically things where they'll sell stuff for prices that are even less than the manufacturer costs, just to screw the yeah, just to get the American competition out of the way. Total opposite, like just total opposite of protectionism With Chinese subsidies.
Speaker 2:So the biggest argument is that Trump would argue that the Chinese government is subsidizing their local industry so that they can make these goods at way below what they would normally pay had they not had that government support. So then they can dump those products in the US market and totally under. Basically pull the bottom out, pull the carpet out from us manufacturer.
Speaker 1:Right. So Trump in 2018, he starts a 25% tariff on about $50 billion worth of Chinese products and then, between like 2018 and the end of his presidency, it's kind of and actually until now it's kind of been fluctuating 10 to 25% of on, like I don't know. It depends on. I don't really understand how it changes, but every time they pass a certain tariff act or whatever, or it just changed, it goes Sliding scale.
Speaker 1:Flux series from 10% to 25%. They're still in place now. The Biden administration didn't really do anything to get rid of them. They recently raised them on $18 billion worth of goods. So they actually raised the rates of tariffs in 2024 on $18 billion worth of goods. But it's more of a where Trump is more of a. I'm just going to tariff everything that comes in. The Biden administration is looking at it as like.
Speaker 2:Well, let's see what we really need to tariff scalpel as opposed to yeah, so semiconductors, steel and aluminum, electric vehicles, batteries.
Speaker 1:Those are the things that the Biden administration is tariffing. I don't really, didn't really dive deep enough into why it's that stuff. I don't know if it's a protectionism thing or if it's a. If it is something where they feel like China's unfairly trading that stuff. I don't really know why. Annually, the tariffs on. So there are other tariffs. There's been tariffs increased on aluminum and steel all throughout this time. There's some elevated In addition to the 2% average. There's some higher ones. Tariffs on China account for $77 billion of the $79 billion annually of tariffs that we get Right. And then China responded with retaliatory tariffs, as you would say. They have tariffed more than $106 billion worth of US goods for nearly $11.6 billion of tariffs over the time as of March 2024,. The trade war tariffs, as you call them, generated more than $233 billion of higher taxes collected for the US government since 2018. 38% of these tariffs were collected under Trump. The remainder have been collected during the Biden's administration.
Speaker 1:I made a little note here. I thought it was kind of interesting. So $233 million was raised. Billion, billion, did I say million? $233 billion is raised and I forget. I get these from some tax thing online. I wish I had the source, I could give it to you in a second here. So anyway, so $233 billion since 2018, and we've sent $175 billion to Ukraine since 2022. So we haven't gained anything.
Speaker 1:That's $40 billion, right, yeah, but that's only in two years. It took us 7 years to get it. So I hey that's from near here or there. I just found that pretty interesting that we've gotten nowhere with these tariffs as far as helping the general government funding. We may have ticked China off, which is stuff whatever. I guess that's cool, but like, yeah, we haven't gotten anywhere Financially, it's all gone back out. See you, Bye-bye.
Speaker 2:Yeah, unfortunately it only really pays. It only works if you know how to cut your spending, but if you've got a Taxfoundationorg, that's where. I got those numbers from Taxfoundation, yeah yeah. So that's where I got those numbers from Taxfoundation, yeah yeah.
Speaker 1:So that's where we are right now. And then to go to where we're headed, where we're worried about being headed, where kind of all the talk is. Trump has a quote unquote plan for new American industrialism 20% tariff across the board and then a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, plus punitive taxes on US companies that ship jobs overseas. He says tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented. He calls himself the tariff man. Willie McKinley is his boy.
Speaker 2:William McKinley is his boy, willie mckinley.
Speaker 1:He went by the name of the napoleon of protection, nice. So this is what we're getting into. And then on monday, like I said, he vowed a 25 tax on mexican and canada exports as a punishment for the illegal immigration. And that's kind of where we're at. So that's kind of where we're at. So that's kind of from what I understand. Now, john, I don't know if I missed anything. Again, fans, it's probably not a full story of what's actually happening, but that's what I gather. It's an America first policy.
Speaker 2:Certainly in how Trump's conveying it, how he's selling it, how he's marketing it, it's America first. But hey, we'll use these tariffs also to end wars and not be spending money overseas. It definitely comes from a we need to protect ourselves first, we need to look after our own first and I think there's a continuity from his first administration with that language and with that mindset. I don't think he's changed. You say what you want about the guy. I think he's been consistent on some things.
Speaker 1:I think he's taking it further. That's fair.
Speaker 2:For sure. Well, I was sold today, with his tax cuts coming to an end in 2025. This could be something else that he could step into like massive. That's either kind of near, either here nor there. You know, we decided to talk about tariffs. I got excited about the idea of talking about this subject because I think it's giving a lot of people one. I'm finding that a lot more people are like googling well, what is a tariff? Um, and the interesting part of John and including me at times.
Speaker 2:I got some. I got to be a bear, I can.
Speaker 2:I could at least pass an elevator pitch on what it is and what its purpose is. But I like it because it's it's kind of opening a window back, to call it the pre progressive era, so like pre 20th century, which I think so much of our american collective mind is kind of stuck in. Everything post-war war ii, I mean, granted, because we none of us were alive back then. But I don't feel like any of us can kind of really relate to the history of what happened before you know that time period. And so I feel like, just for me, I get not excited about the idea of tariffs. On a personal level, I don't think they'll be very effective. That's just my take on it. Yeah, you.
Speaker 2:And 100% of economists 45 out of 45 polled.
Speaker 1:There was some poll at first context. There was some poll completed where 45, I believe it was 45 economists were asked if tariffs are a good idea, and they, either 100% of them, were either on the strongly disagree or just disagree side of it. Not a single person was neutral or agreed. Not a single economist. Yeah, there's a lot of stats to back it up too, of course, which we're kind of going to get into. We're not going to get into the numbers, but just in general.
Speaker 2:From an economic historical perspective. I'm excited to talk about it because it really was one of the core issues in US politics and global politics really before the invention of the income tax, during the progressive era.
Speaker 1:I mean, you figure, people are always talking about taxes, just in general. So if you take taxes away, this is what took its place.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and there is a bit of. Just before we get into the deep of the history, there is a double-sided thing to the argument that I don't think a lot of the media is bringing up when they talk about the tariff, and trump's tariff in particular. He's on record of saying he thought looking at waste, how could we look at possibly ending direct taxation, which is the income tax? So we all get a paycheck. That money is withheld by the federal government in a lot of cases state governments as well before it hits our bank account, so they get their cut of our income before we get our money that we worked for. That's a direct tax. We're being directly taxed on our labor.
Speaker 2:A tariff, on the other hand, it's an indirect tax. It's taxing the good which we pay in higher prices, but it's indirect. The tax isn't on me directly, on my labor or what I as an individual am doing. So Trump has been on record as saying why don't we bring tariffs back? And we can use the funding and the money made from those tariffs which is suspect for sure and, like Matt said, there's numbers out there to back that up. But with bringing that back, maybe we can start to reduce direct taxation, start to move away from federal income tax and effectively return to a pre-progressive era, pre-20th century kind of system.
Speaker 1:That's kind of how I'm yes, and we'll get into how. That's a bunch of nonsense, so we'll get into that. It really doesn't make much sense, but all right, let's. Well, we'll get into it. So let's just get into the history. So we want to stick to the history. I'm sure tariffs have been around since freaking. You know the caveman? My guess would be the British were definitely big proponents of it. Yeah, big reason, Basically, big reason for the Declaration of Independence was you can consider some of that taxation without representation being a tariff.
Speaker 2:Right, yeah, though they are being forced to pay a tax on a good that they probably would have been fine paying. I don't.
Speaker 1:But there's more representation, but they, they were, whatever they're, more for their free trade. It was founded on free trade.
Speaker 2:But back then, direct taxation I think come tax wasn't even a concept back right. So the tax really could only be laid on someone or group through indirect means, like taxing sugar or cotton or whatever goods were being made in the economy. So yeah, the idea of an income tax, which we've all just accepted at this point as part of our lives, uh, wasn't a thing back then. And so, yeah, at the very, at the founding of the country we had.
Speaker 1:So let's get back to it, let's get into it, let's stick to the timeline all right, stick to the script, just calm down, just calm down, you already.
Speaker 4:I'm excited. Stop it. I listen to stuff all the time.
Speaker 1:No, you don't, I do. You got to organize your thoughts, john. Just calm down. Take a deep breath. How do we want to present this to these people? All right, take a breath. Do you need another drink? Do you need a break? I need one drink, all right, jeez, oh man, this guy's out of control. Are you good? Are you relaxed? I'm good, all right. All right, I already went too far into the current day. We've got All right. So we already laid down where we're at today and let's get into the history. So, like we said, the history has been. Tariffs have probably been around forever, but let's go all the way back to 1789.
Speaker 2:When was the Constitution signed yeah, 1787-88.
Speaker 1:So we're talking late 1780s. We finally get this federal government developed. We get rid of the Articles of Confederation, we get a little bit of a stronger federal government. I think the federal government's stuck thinking well, who's going to pay for it?
Speaker 2:How are we going to live off of this? We gave the federal government the power to levy taxes and tariffs.
Speaker 1:Right. So the constitution directly prohibited direct taxing, as John had mentioned, which is a federal, is a federal, income is an income tax. And the federal government or the, so the government at the time, 19, 1789, thinking how are we going to get this? They figure a 5% across the board tax of imported goods would be the way to do that. Yes, that is called the tariff of 1789. Aka, I will. I do want to say I want to give a shout-out to one of my founding father cards. I believe he may have been a king or he might have been a king. He was probably a jack John Jay. John Jay was a big free trade guy. He did not like the tariffs.
Speaker 2:As a Federalist, I'm a little shocked at that.
Speaker 1:Well, I think he was kind of boys with England, didn't he kind of like bend over for them for the J Treaty? I feel like he was more.
Speaker 2:Well, I don't know how close he and Hamilton were. Hamilton respected the British, so much so that he wanted to mimic what they were doing, which was having a tariff led government, you know, funded by these tariffs.
Speaker 1:I didn't know that about John J People be hating on John J, Though that J treaty really set him back a little bit. A little bit he kind of gave into the British huh, and that would happen.
Speaker 2:That's what the Jeffers people that support Jeffersonians would have said so.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:For sure, yeah, but they basically have. This new government needed a way to fund itself. They couldn't.
Speaker 1:I said that already.
Speaker 2:But under the Articles of Confederation the federal government that was still there you couldn't tax the states directly. They had to request the money from each state. That was one of the inefficiencies of the articles. Many of the proponents of the Constitution would say so. They still had that mindset, though, even after the Constitution was ratified. It's like well, we need a way to collect taxes from the states that's easy to enforce and was only a nominal cost to the average citizen. That's another way of saying we need an indirect tax, like a tariff, and so that 5% that Matt said across the board, it was purely from a revenue standpoint. It was just we want to bring in enough money to fund this new government and not much else.
Speaker 1:Yep, no, you've no wars in Ukraine um not funding that funding wars?
Speaker 2:no, using that money as a way to protect local.
Speaker 1:There was no protectionism in this tariff, even though I think alexander hamilton would have been one who is very pro-protectionism. Alexander Hamilton was very pro-industrialism when I think a lot of people were like we're an agricultural country, we're going to do agriculture, we're going to export agriculture, we're not an industrial country and that was kind of like the back and forth between the, and we'll get into that as the protectionism and not is what are we do?
Speaker 2:we have to force success of the industrial and industrializing the country when we're an agricultural nation yes, and you know, for some the argument, a lot of those in the south in particular, the argument would have been we grow crops. England makes, makes lamps or whatever they make, finished goods, manufactured goods, clothes, clothes. I guess in 1780s 90s I don't know, Eventually the argument is we'll send X, we'll export food and free trade, we'll give them something, they'll give us something back.
Speaker 1:We buy back finished goods. Isn't that way? That isn't that? Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be nice how life is? But uh-oh, here comes 1816, the Dallas Tariff Fast forward a couple years.
Speaker 2:Fast forward a couple years. We've just left the War of 1812. So now we're hurting a little bit.
Speaker 1:We also had the Embargo Act under Jefferson, so we weren't bringing stuff in at all Dude for America to fight a war with England when it was only 25 years old. It's bold. I mean, Matt, what were you doing when you were 25? Dressing up like Pinocchio, going to parties dressed like Pinocchio.
Speaker 2:Think about it Granted, we did fight them when we were like not even born.
Speaker 1:So I mean to do it again, though I mean they were hurting, us was hurting a little bit, I think at this point at post war might be my guess.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, they had the embargo under Jefferson. They were probably being embargoed in Europe, so goods weren't coming in, so our manufacturing we weren't exporting, weren't importing, and so you know it was. Wars are generally always difficult for trade, protected or otherwise, it was tough. So, four years later, you have the tariff of 1816, which goes down in history as what is know. Rather than just a tariff being used and perceived as a revenue generating tool for the federal government to basically fund itself, it shifted into….
Speaker 2:This was basically corporate welfare and the idea of using a tariff to protect homegrown industry. That either would have happened organically or inorganically on its own. So a lot of this kind of started this wave of sectionalism, because some of the biggest beneficiaries, as some might know, is northern factories. So the northeast were some of the biggest advocates of this protectionism, because that's where the factories ended up In 1816, most of the urban class, would you say, was more in the northeast.
Speaker 2:The south was still overwhelmingly agrarian and the west was also agrarian and they didn't have any roads or canals or um canals to be able to move their, their products to the market. So they were interested in this thing called internal improvements, you know the roads and the and the riverways and all that stuff, to be able to actually get their stuff to Eastern markets to then ship out across the world, you know from the Eastern ports. And uh, it had a lot of detractors and it kind of set the ball in motion for the next 40 years, I'd say almost right up until the Civil War. You know, is it constitutional? First of all Did the?
Speaker 1:states get it. Thomas Jefferson did not think so. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Like, everyone agreed that, okay, the government can tariff, but only from a revenue position to just collect revenue to fund itself. But can it pass tariffs with the stated purpose of protecting certain industries infant industries, they would call them, and that became a big argument.
Speaker 1:Led by Hank Henry Clay, henry Clay.
Speaker 2:Henry Clay was the tariff man himself, yep the first iteration of the tariff man, big tariff man, he had a big grand plans too, kind of like our next president. He came up and devised this idea called the American system, which he tried to. He tried to ELE a little bit. He tried a little ELE tactic, you know he had.
Speaker 1:You might remember Henry Henry Clay. He was the guy who could never win president the presidency right. Did he lose the John Tyler?
Speaker 2:No, Tyler didn't run independently he oh yeah, Tyler.
Speaker 1:Tyler was the vice president. Henry Harrison but he was. Henry. Clay was running around that time.
Speaker 2:Yes, henry Clay basically ran the wigs when Tyler, who was awake himself when he entered the vice presidency, henry Clay basically kicked Tyler out of the party.
Speaker 2:That's it, john Tyler, who is also Bill O'Reilly's fifth least best president listed as yeah, yes, bill O'Reilly, the money whore trying to sell books, um, yeah, so the big. So Henry Clay came up with this thing called the American system. He said, well, hey, look, let's all. How can we all win? So you had three main groups you had the Northeast industrialists, you had Western farmers and you had the South, basically. And he said, well, hey, let's come up with a system. We'll have protective tariffs so we'll throw a cookie to the Northern industrialists so we can start building our industry, we can start making, you know, finished goods, clothing and whatever. We'll throw a bone Then, with that money we take in, we'll then fund federally funded internal improvements so that farmers in the West they can farm and then they can get their goods sent on riverways and roads to get them out to the Eastern port so that we can ship them abroad.
Speaker 2:Now the south was kind of the third leg in this. That didn't really stand like they didn't see what was really in it for them. To them they were like hey, we grow our food. I mean, granted, they, they promoted a more free trade. Granted, they had a labor system. That was very at odds.
Speaker 4:It was pretty true it was pretty cheap, pretty pretty cheap labor pretty cheap pretty cheap.
Speaker 2:But you know, this was a time when it wasn't seen as every state should support the other states because they're american. Well, we got to buy american because they were producing cotton or other cash crops. They were able to just send it right off from the ocean.
Speaker 1:They didn't need those improvements.
Speaker 2:Send it off to England. Buy the goods from England, the latest and greatest, whatever it was at the time. Bring it in and prove their life.
Speaker 1:Say what you want. I guess I feel like they should have fell in line a little bit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, a little bit.
Speaker 1:I think they would have had the thing. Not Because I think it all works together. It's all one machine. If you think about it, I think it all would have kind of worked together, but I think what we're getting to is the tariff of 1828. Machine, if you think about it, you know, I think it all would have kind of worked together, but but then, but I think what we're getting to is the tariff of 1828. Right, it's kind of what led to this tariff of 1828 was a tariff that they were looking I don't know where. How, how did it start? I know what happened was free traders that were in the government were able to work so much nonsense into this tariff bill to make it so that there's no way this thing is going to pass. Right, it's like a 60% tariff across the board and all these other things you think about today with these budget passes or the Inflation Reduction Act, where you're fitting in, you know, let's pay for six pandas at the San Diego Zoo or something.
Speaker 1:So all these random stuff added into there. Like a bunch of that stuff, I think, was added into that, so much so that I was like there's no way this thing's going to pass.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it was just so egregious however, they wrote it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this was just to update the tariff policy from like to increase it yes so they were looking to increase it from 1816. We're at 1828 now. Henry clay is like getting these improvements in. We need more money for this. So they're trying to raise that and everyone's like nah. So led by by people like the South South Carolina or yeah, so anyway so so they made it so terrible and then somehow, through lobbying I don't know what they were able to get it past.
Speaker 2:It got passed it passed some time Talk about your all time backfires. It was a big backfire.
Speaker 1:So now they're stuck with. Now these free traders are stuck with this nonsense bill that like they're like shocked. That would have ever happened, that would ever passed yeah, and then they, instead of fighting for fighting it and fighting for something that everyone could agree to, they went the other way and it backfired but it still led then to the what's called the nullification crisis.
Speaker 2:So, even even though it passed, the South led by, in particular, south Carolina basically said oh okay, well, we're going to basically use the 10th Amendment and we're just not going to collect this tariff in our state. The rest of the states in the union can collect it. We're not going to collect it because we deem it unconstitutional. It's an unconstitutional law. We only have to abide by constitutional laws. All other powers not delegated to the general government are reserved to the states. A protectionist tariff, south Carolina argued, was not constitutional. They hence nullified the tariff, and that led to a whole other issue almost civil war at the time. And that led to a whole other issue almost civil war at the time. And so then you had what's called the force bill, which then came on the scene, and that was basically a way of the federal government forcing South Carolina to collect the tariff.
Speaker 2:Andrew Jackson was basically saying you know, I'll march the military in and we'll collect the tariff from you. John Tyler was the only one actually to speak up in Congress and speak against the force bill, which took a lot of guts back then Cause Andrew Jackson. Basically, he was the heavy hitter of the times. We call it the Jacksonian era for a reason. But John Tyler stood up against him and said you know that's there's state sovereignty here, like this, if it's not constitutional, you know that's there's state sovereignty here, like this if it's not constitutional, you know. But Jackson didn't see it that way. So we got hairy and eventually both sides back down and you know it did not lead to civil war at that moment, but it was, uh, it was pretty hairy, you know. And so these, these tariffs became very politicized and led to some pretty like intense debates at the very least, and almost led to some armed conflict.
Speaker 1:And then continued through the Civil War. It's always contentious.
Speaker 3:I think all the way through.
Speaker 1:There's some people who may think that they were as equal of a contributor to the start of the Civil War as slavery is. I'll leave it at that. I don't know, I don't think. I think it certainly had something to do with it. I certainly think the two, North and South, didn't like each other over tariffs. I don't think it would have led to Civil War, but it certainly played a factor in their dislike of each other For sure.
Speaker 2:I think, and after this time period, after the tariff bondage after 1820, I think tariffs did take a backseat to the slavery question. For sure, and as more and more states came into the union, when we had Texas come in in the 1840s and then you know, but it would have been more of a reason for this.
Speaker 1:It would have been more of a reason for the secession to happen more readily and more easily. It's like not that it was the reason, but it's like if they're not going to let us have slaves and we got to deal with these tariffs, let's get out of here. If it was one and not the other, maybe it wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 2:Right. Well, and the argument was a lot of people like John C Calhoun. They would have argued that well, nullification is well one. We want to stay in the union, we don't want to secede. We just want the federal government to play by the rules that we set up. We, as the state, set up for them, and if nullification is a way of doing that, that's what we got to do. But we as the states, we're not subservient to the federal government, and if you do something unconstitutional we don't have to abide by it. That was their argument. The slavery question was obviously what you can argue. It's like, okay, you don't want tariffs, but then you're gonna. It's very easy for you to say when you have basically free labor, slave labor, yeah, making your crops to then sell overseas. So I mean, the north could certainly say that too, but they had wage slavery. I mean, to be a wage laborer in a northern manufacturer, northern factory in the 1840s and 50s, I would think would be pretty horrific. Don't say it, it's horrific.
Speaker 1:Not saying what it is Not good. Don't say it's the same.
Speaker 2:It's not the same.
Speaker 1:You still have agency.
Speaker 2:I guess you still have more agency over yourself, but anyway.
Speaker 1:So you have all these protective tariffs in place. They are still high. They've never gone down from I assume they went somewhat down from the tariff of abomination with the nullification crisis, but they never went down to anything really.
Speaker 2:they did come back down. Not, they did come back down, but then, on the eve of the civil war, you had the moral tariff, which became very contentious. I think just by that point the south was ready to kind of go a lot. And then, but just kind of add a fuel to the fire, but that new Republican Party, the Republicans, ran basically on the ticket of, of, of ending slavery in the territories and a high protective tariff.
Speaker 2:So the Republicans, the GOP that still exists today and which Trump is a member of, they were protectionist almost to a man when they, when they cut, when the, when the party was founded in the 1850s, and it wasn't until basically recently, until the mid to late 20th century. When we start thinking of, when we think Republicans, we think Ronald Reagan, we think more free traders, we think of more pro-business, but from, like, a free trade standpoint. They loved protectionism, they loved tariffs, and so, yeah, led by people like William McKinley, who we know in a previous episode got shot by our board, leon Colesgoys and yeah, so in a lot of ways I think Trump is taking him back to the way that he is McKinley at this point.
Speaker 1:after the, the war was very pro-protectionism.
Speaker 2:Extremely. He was called the emperor of protection.
Speaker 1:Right. So protectionism is the way to go. But then always the argument for these tariffs and how, maybe how a lot of the country could have been on board with these tariffs and how they were able to keep it going was, you know, we need to develop the infant, infant, infant industry, but at the turn of the 20th century these U S companies were outpacing global competitors because of these protectionist tariffs. Yeah, so was this a good thing? Was it a bad thing? Regardless, the U? S started really blowing up the industry. I think at one point in 1901, the British journalists had written the US has acquired control of almost every new industry created during the past 15 years. So you figure, from the late 1800s. They were literally the leading industry of everything.
Speaker 1:We're crushing it, so at that point you're looking at like, hey, if we're crushing it and we were the best in the world, why do we still need to pay these tariffs? Can't they compete with the rest of the rest of the world Right? And that's where the thought of income taxes started coming in with the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2:Well, in part too, because a lot of corruption began to surround these tariffs too. So by the 1880s, 1890s there was so much corruption in the Republican Party which you mentioned on a previous episode. After the Civil War the Republicans basically ran the federal government. With the exception of Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms, they basically ran the government for like 40 years.
Speaker 1:And if you had a boy who had a freaking stuffed animal factory in New York and they had the pocket of some governor or senator in the federal government in Congress, they'll line their pockets with money to add protectionist tariffs onto that specific good, and that's where you're talking about the process of to add protectionist tariffs onto that specific good.
Speaker 2:That's where you're talking the process of renting, kind of like rent-seeking, and basically what would develop the modern lobbying? Yeah, and this is a lobbying congressman for well. Okay, yeah, maybe you'll have a blanket tariff for these items, but for our items can you give us a. So maybe you have a standard 20% across the board, but for our items can you give us 30%? So very corrupt, and give us a. So maybe you have a standard 20 across the board, but for our items can you give us 30? So very corrupt. And, as we know, grover cleveland was super. He was made a point of being against corruption and a lot of this lobbying and protection, these protectionist lobbyists column. You know that was definitely someone that grover cleveland would go after, but uh, so yeah, so it was all that going on that it wasn't very necessary.
Speaker 1:a lot of corruption going all led to corruption, and I think the direct tax was a way to see it as less ability for corruption.
Speaker 2:That and the populist at the time thought that the billionaires, effectively, should be really paying their fair share.
Speaker 2:They saw it, I think, as a way for industrialists to get an unfair advantage, and the populists kind of saw it as corporate welfare for what it was and they said, well, we need to do away with these tariffs and we need to directly tax the billionaires.
Speaker 2:And that's what the first talks of an income tax were. They were meant to be on a very, very small percentage of the population, the richest tenth of a percentage of the population, the richest tenth of a percent of the population I don't know the exact number, but a very small number, the billionaires, effectively, to pay some very low amount in today's terms in a percentage of income tax. So, yeah, definitely, the income tax ran with a wave of populist sentiment saying these tariffs unnecessarily favor industrialists and the wealthy. We need to tax those individuals with an income tax directly and then we'll have enough money to fund the government with that money, the general government with that money, and then goods won't be as expensive for your average Joe, because then the products will be able to be more competitive and we can pay for them accordingly.
Speaker 1:So the Constitution of the United States didn't allow for direct taxation, so an amendment and that's where the 16th Amendment came into play, correct, and we did probably talk about that at the tax day special that we talked about back in the day, yep. So you see, this trend of like, oh, industry doesn't need it anymore, let's try to get to a more direct tax. Everyone's kind of getting away from the tariffs. This is the turn of the 20th century, so we're talking like the 16th Amendment was in like the 1913, yeah, like kind of right before world war one, which actually was perfect timing because trade like shut down big time during world war one. So the tariffs would have really hurt.
Speaker 2:Like losing the tariffs would have really hurt, I think but I think, yeah, but I will say the devil in that detail is that we had this new income tax on the books and then we go off to war three years later and the government increased income tax rates to some crazy highs. And I think the government kind of, and that's when it's never looked back and the government oh wow this we can do this we should have been direct taxing people a lot earlier.
Speaker 2:Why were we taking an indirect route with tariffs? We've just been directly taxed and then it's been that way. Since it's been that way.
Speaker 1:That's a good point. So all this thing, it's all going back away from tariffs. Then disaster strikes 1929, stock market crash, great Depression. The United States is just in turmoil. Everyone's freaking out. People jumping out of windows, People losing money. We don't know Gold. Know gold, silver? What does it? Does it even matter? Wizard of oz? I don't understand any of it. But in walks the one and only herbie hoover to save the day yikes real swing and a miss by herbert hoover here.
Speaker 1:What I'm talking about is the smooth holly tariff that's passed in 1930. Basically, what are you going to do? Oh, the Great Depression? Oh, we're struggling. Well, let's raise tariffs to try to get more income.
Speaker 2:I guess was his thought Well, the West of the world is dealing with the Depression as well, so then they put up their own gates in the form of retaliatory tariffs, and it just sends basically not only so.
Speaker 1:Not only was the the american economy, domestic economy, going poorly, but now there was no export business because there were all these retaliatory tariffs, because if we're going to tariff england from bringing stuff to sending stuff here, then england's gonna say, okay, fine, you, I'll pay that, you have to pay this. So then nobody was, there was no trade going, and then just not only was the economy in shambles, but then the agricultural industry and everything just had a freak year.
Speaker 2:Yeah, with the planes and all that.
Speaker 3:In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the anyone Anyone, the Great Depression, passed the anyone Anyone, the Tariff Bill, the Holly Smoot Tariff Act, which anyone raised or lowered, raised tariffs in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone Anyone know the effects? It did not work and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.
Speaker 1:It was a real swing and a miss. World trade fell about 66% between 1929 and 1934 directly attributed to this tariff Directly. I'm adding.
Speaker 3:that Didn't help.
Speaker 1:It's probably related, maybe not directly, maybe the word directly shouldn't have been in there.
Speaker 3:It was fuel on the fire. I trumped it I trumped it.
Speaker 1:I trumped it Big time.
Speaker 2:But he was being a Republican now, so it's like you know.
Speaker 1:Going back to what he thinks hey, yeah, it's like, oh, I guess we'll just raise tariffs and like what we always did, and I guess, yeah, it's worth a shot, you know, and it just really made the depression worse, probably lasted longer than it would have because of this, yeah, so what changed this dude, cordell Hall, this guy from like from what I understand about this guy, he's from like New Orleans or he's from like some like. He grew up like real modest and he learned about trade just from like trading logs up the river, yeah, and he learned about trade just from trading logs up the river, yeah, and he realized that, wow, if everybody trades freely, everyone's cool with each other. And his thought was which is what we talked about in the beginning of the episode if everyone can trade, that's the way to attain world peace. Win-wins, win-wins, exactly. Don't take advantage of somebody, you know, whatever.
Speaker 1:So he was a big proponent of this. He worked for your boy, woodrow Wilson. He was the Secretary of State, I think, for Woodrow Wilson at this time and he basically worked with them to start the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which what that did was allowed the president. It took the power of adjusting tariffs directly to the president, the executive branch of government, and the thought there was, that was a way to avoid the um influence of of corruption, because the because the president has incorruptible right.
Speaker 1:I think the general of which this kind of makes sense to me is like the the, the president, the executive branch has to appease a way broader group of people. Okay, when, if you're in Congress you can get on a smaller scale, you can get that corruption for specific industries. When putting it into the executive branch felt as though it would be more of a less corruptible thing, eric, easily corruptible.
Speaker 2:Well, certainly unconstitutional. I think that's fair, I think that goes without question.
Speaker 1:But it led to shifting towards more open trade policy. That was the goal of it to go open trade.
Speaker 2:Well, that's a classic case of do the ends justify the means, I would say. But then. So that's a classic case of do the ends justify the means, I would say.
Speaker 1:But then so that happened and that kind of allowed for the tariffs to get lowered quickly. Yeah, we kind of start bottom, start moving towards free trade, going into World War Two and then then World War II. And then World War II happened. Business was a booming, all this industry money that we're making from. I think the best thing to stimulate an economy has always been war. A lot of people say that.
Speaker 2:The military-industrial complex Yep Yep.
Speaker 1:So after World War II, what are we going to do? They developed the world kind world got together and said what are we going to do about this trade market? So we don't go back to pre-World War II, because a lot of people also would argue that part of the rise of fascism could be attributed to tariffs and and on free trade, retaliatory retaliation, ism nationalism. You can kind of argue that might be like let's part of the case being bullied in this stuff, germany yeah, just the idea of retaliatory behavior.
Speaker 1:Yeah, to people that start wars so they get together with a group of nations and they I don't know how many nations were a part of this, but they start the GATT. It's the General Agreements and Tariffs and Trade in 1947, which later evolved into the World Trade Organization, which basically agreed to treat every country fairly. So if you lower tariffs for all these countries that were in this agreement, if you lower tariffs for one country, every country that's in this agreement of the trade gets that same reduction right and just basically opened up free trade moving forward from 1947 on right and it was part of a strategy, us strategy, yeah, post war.
Speaker 2:It's also a cold war motive too, I think to it. The soviets obviously weren't part of that from the cold. Don't think they were played a major part in kind of a way to keep our part of the world West in the, you know, in the pocket of the West by promoting more capitalist venture. You know we had capitalism versus communism. I definitely think that played a part of it. Um, but yeah, definitely stepped away from tariffs, for sure. But I'm looking at this graph here. It kind of looks like, especially from the 50s and 60s into the 70s, as we stepped away from tariffs, as tariffs plummeted, marginal income tax rates went up and peaked in 19, looks like 1949, at like 90%.
Speaker 3:I don't know about you, I just wouldn't get out of bed, I wouldn't get out of bed if I was being taxed 90% of my earnings Now it didn't stay there forever, they would eventually start going down too, but it's like I suppose it's all relative, I don't know it kind of went up and down.
Speaker 2:As one went down, the government didn't stop spending money. I think, as we all know, we had the military industrial complex. We go into the great society and modern welfare state. In the 60s we had Vietnam, so it's like we didn't stop. We went off the gold standard because of all these expenses, guns and butter. So I mean, we kept spending money and I think that we just never looked back from deficit spending. Okay, we won't tax you, but we'll just spend money we don't have. And we've been in a deficit spending cycle for 40 years. It's pretty sweet Just be able to do that and now we're doing both. No household would do that, be able to do that long enough. Well, now it's both.
Speaker 1:That's both. Now we're tariffed and taxed and income taxed.
Speaker 2:So that's sweet. I love that.
Speaker 1:Pay more for what I get, Take money take less money home from work and pay more for what I buy. So it's pretty sweet. It's women for the old Uncle Sam, that's for sure.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I love getting shafted. So yeah, here we are. We got tariffs back on the news and, yeah, I think I do find the most interesting part whether I'm you know what being what, whether one's for or against the tariff, I like I my hope is that it just brings some small historical lesson back.
Speaker 1:I know that the left will. All right, we're going to get a resident expert. Hello Hi, is this Mark C? This is Mark C, the big government man himself.
Speaker 5:That's right. Yeah, thanks for your timeliness on calling me. I really appreciate the. Your planner did a great job.
Speaker 1:I had him take care of it. I don't know what he had been saying. I've been running the show this whole time.
Speaker 5:Yeah, you have a great booker. Make sure you get him a raise Top dollar, the tariffs?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1:Please. So, Mark, what do you think about these tariffs going on? Right now it's talking to town. It's a really, really great intro to a really complicated subject. We just went through the history of tariffs, going all the way back to the tariff of 1789, and kind of how we were able to go through the 1800s high tariffs, beginning of the 1900s, getting away from the tariffs and going more into the income tax realm till kind of just recently.
Speaker 5:That's right, yep, and I mean honestly, this has been something that I mean if we're talking about I know, john and you can talk about more of the 1700s, but it's changed a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, where tariffs were really a big thing for Democrats in the late 90s and early 2000s and they talked about it as fair trade, which is kind of what they used. And since the Trump years it's really changed around, where the Democrats are against anything he's for, so they've kind of become free market in a weird way.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Now is this like related anyway industry and union backing.
Speaker 5:I feel like the Democrats were more pro-union back in the day than they have been so much now example, agricultural unions do not like tariffs at all, because it actually hurts them more than almost anything Correct Some of the exports and some of the steel and some of these other industries where they're trying to. Basically, they care about keeping jobs in America more than actually making sure Americans can live and afford it. This is something they love because ultimately, you know, this takes away competition and they can charge higher prices. You know we can pay a $50 or whatever the minimum wage is and it allows us to not have to compete with as many people. So you know, some people say that's good, but those people don't quite understand the impact it has on average American families who are now paying, you know, twice as much for the same thing they were buying anyway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and getting taxed on income. I just got to love it. It's a win-win yeah on that one, a little bit of double dipping by the government, I think, don't you? Yeah?
Speaker 5:Yeah, but the problem is I don't understand how people don't realize that these are taxes. I mean, I think that's the hardest part. You know, we can talk about Trump and all that stuff. But I mean, Biden just kind of quietly did a lot of the same things Trump did with tariffs, Just didn't really talk about it as much because he had to pretend like he hated everything Trump did.
Speaker 3:But it is interesting.
Speaker 5:Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 2:No, no, no.
Speaker 1:I think the big thing is like it seems like the way that Trump is using tariffs is something that really hasn't been done before, as far as like they're more like cultural tariffs, where Trump will say, all right, well, mexico you're sending Recently obviously Mexico is sending all these illegal immigrants into our country, we'll just tariff them so they stop doing it. Or Trump sees tariffs as a way to avoid war by saying like if you're going to threaten war, we're just going to tariff you, so then you don't do that. And it's like that's not really cool.
Speaker 5:Well, he uses a bargaining chip, which I mean. There's somebody people like you know, for example my dad who would say you know, he's okay with terrorists because he's using it as a bargaining chip to make these people play fair or do whatever, like you said next year to stop sending people.
Speaker 1:It's like a different way to word it, where people won't see it as a tax, but the government's still making that money. Trump taxing, raising tariffs on China China's not going to stop sending stuff over here, so the government's still making that money on it, as much as Trump makes it seem like it's for the people. I don't really see it as that. The government's still getting the money and I don't think that. I don't see that helping.
Speaker 5:It's not really the government making the money, because these are not.
Speaker 5:It's not like American governments paying these people, it's individual businesses paying these people.
Speaker 5:So it's, yeah, like they're getting their tax dollars but ultimately China or whoever you want to talk about they're either going to raise the price on what they're sending over here because they have to make the same amount of money, or they're going to do retaliatory tariffs and tax something else that we get a lot where they import a lot to America or export a lot to America and we're going to be paying there. So it's kind of a perfect winners and losers thing too, because there is some industry that benefit from tariffs, but then there's a lot that are actually hurt by it and the supply chain that creates a huge issue with that. If Trump was to use the issue with this as a negotiation tactic is if he uses it and he said okay, I'm going to do this you actually have to follow through with it. If they don't follow your rules and that's been the issue You've got to follow through, and a lot of people have been hurt by that, especially in the Midwest Right.
Speaker 1:That's the problem.
Speaker 2:But I do feel like maybe I don't know, this is what I've been thinking and kind of just hearing the media.
Speaker 1:I think John's very pro-tariff, by the way, so I'll leave it at that. Well, he's a big Trumper, so I get it. You can tell by the sweet ballot that he submitted for the presidential election.
Speaker 5:He told me he's America's greatest president ever. I think I'm not sure.
Speaker 1:On record. On record Well, you know, Bill O'Reilly put John Tyler as the fifth worst president of all time. That put John's panties in a bunch.
Speaker 5:Yeah well he's a really classy guy. He ate 10 foreign stars, so he's a real gentleman.
Speaker 1:John or Bill O'Reilly, bill O'Reilly.
Speaker 5:Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly, jenna Jameson, that's a good story.
Speaker 1:Maybe we'll do that on this day in history this week in history coming up. John, go ahead. Sorry, I interrupted you.
Speaker 2:You were about to say how great tariffs are. I have ADHD. No, I was going to ask you, mark. What I'm seeing on the media is like everyone's like well, tariffs don't work, and I would have to agree with that. There's a history to it. There's plenty of statistics to back it up. 100% of economists.
Speaker 2:I believe, say they don't work, but you don't get the flip side of what Trump said during the campaign, which was well, hey, why can't we increase tariffs and lower direct taxation? Why can't we look at finding ways to slowly move off of an income tax? What are your thoughts with the idea of how could it would you? What do you think of if we brought tariffs back on some level or some scale, but we dropped income taxes across the board for every bracket? Do you see that as a win-win, a net benefit, or do you see it as a moot point? Because he kind of does mention that.
Speaker 5:Yeah, it could be a net benefit. I think you have to get rid of the income tax altogether for it to make sense.
Speaker 1:You also would have to Go ahead. Sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted you. Mark, see my bad.
Speaker 5:No, no, go ahead. No, no, you're great, go. We call him for the answer. But you go ahead, go ahead, mark. Well, I'm going to say that you still had the even with the tariffs. You still have the winners and losers part. So it's like are you going to? What are you going to do the industries that are hurt the most with tariffs? Right, are you going to prop them up? Because then you have to put some kind of corporate welfare program into those. And then there is the, the industries that benefit from tariffs in america. So I still think that when you talk about tariffs, it's still an unequal taxation of people, because some industries get hit hard and others don't. I mean, yeah, the prices might affect everybody, but people's livelihoods could be different. So I guess I would have to figure out how that would work. But I'm much more open to tariffs as a replacement for an income tax, not in addition to and I think we could all agree with that, as we.
Speaker 1:Well, I think there'd be more fluctuation. If you get completely rid of that, you have to deal with the retaliatory tariffs coming back, right? I think that's kind of what Mark's getting at.
Speaker 5:You never know what you're going to be paying every year because if China decides, oh, I'm going to raise it to 70%, it's like, okay, well, are we going to raise ours? And either way, people are paying more and you can be taxed more. But again that happens. Now, right? I mean, you don't know necessarily exactly what tax rate you'll be in, how many write-offs you can use, and if the government changes the tax rate, which they can while they're in session.
Speaker 1:Plus, everyone's going to hate each other. That's not happening now.
Speaker 5:Things are good.
Speaker 1:Well.
Speaker 5:Mark, what do you think about? America is really united at this point. What do you think about these?
Speaker 1:numbers. I talked about this at the beginning of the episode. I find this interesting. Maybe I'm just looking at it differently, maybe I'm not looking at it right. So what I gather from my friends over at taxfoundationorg which is a org, so you know it's legit, not a com as of March 2024, these trade war tariffs have generated $233 billion of higher taxes collected for the US government, right, yep, so say that's since 2018. So six years, we got $233 billion. Well, I was looking just to figure out where we're at money-wise internationally and what kind of implications that $233 billion has. We've sent $175 billion over to Ukraine since 2022. So have we gained anything from these tariffs?
Speaker 5:We've lost $400 million. You just showed us what we've lost. The thing is, the government doesn't actually collect. I mean, we're the ones paying it. The government doesn't have money and in fact, the $233 billion that's just, if anything, helping to pay off debt, but you're charging higher prices to do it. It's not like we have some surplus where we're just getting the money, but I guess we're not gaining any ground.
Speaker 5:We're losing ground and it really is important to always remember when you talk about this. It's not the government. The government never gets money. The government is taxed. The government doesn't have money. That's how you say, oh, they're giving away free. Oh, we get free health care. Oh, free this. The government doesn't have money. Those are our money that is going to the government that they're spending poorly. They money. There's our money that is going to the government that they're spending poorly. They don't have a dime of money.
Speaker 2:It's all our money. So then, wouldn't tariffs be a better check? Still, though, than income taxes.
Speaker 1:I told you he loves tariffs, Mark.
Speaker 2:No than income taxes, because I feel like when you have income taxes, I'm like, well then you have to give the individual health care. When you start taxing individuals with an income tax, you're going to basically bring up all these other programs like social security. Everyone thinks in terms of individual, not in terms of indirect. Okay, yeah, your milk's going to cost more, your steel is going to cost more, but those are still discretionary purchases you can make you know like, yeah, but why?
Speaker 5:why would a flat tax not be a better option than both of those? Because, at that point everyone's being taxed at an equal rate. They're not being taxed in the equal rate Tariffs they're not being taxed at an equal rate.
Speaker 3:What if you don't work? Well, yeah, you should.
Speaker 5:I mean a flat tax, you're paying.
Speaker 3:It's a national, you're paying sales tax wherever you buy 20, 22%.
Speaker 5:Yeah, but it's the same for everything and anything you buy, then everybody's being taxed at the exact same rate and you know whatever you buy or decide you spend your money on. That's seemingly a more fair way to do it Because, like we said, tariffs do impact certain industries more than others and that doesn't seem fair that one industry is getting these net benefits and the other industry is getting these huge net negatives where they're going to have to lay off people.
Speaker 1:When you say that, you're saying more. It hurts export-heavy industry and helps domestic industry.
Speaker 5:Well, yeah, yeah, exactly Right. And unless it's the industry that's getting a lot of parts from overseas, then it hurts them too. I mean, that's what people don't realize You're talking about. Oh, a car, even an American-made car, you're still getting a lot of parts from overseas. So it's still increasing the cost of you doing that when you have to pay more money for that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was seeing something where Trump was going to. I mean, I don't know if this is necessarily a tariff, but John Deere was threatening to leave and go to Mexico. And then Trump's like well, if you leave for Mexico, I'm going to tax the hell out of John Deere stuff and I'm like that's just going to hurt the farmers.
Speaker 5:Yeah, fun fact, he also made that story up. The CEO of John Deere is like yeah, that never happened. I don't know what he's talking about. Really, we're probably still going. Yeah, I mean, he makes up whatever he wants. Yeah, the John Deere guy said we've never had that discussion and I think, like at this point, we're still probably going to Mexico. So, thank you, I give him credit.
Speaker 1:It's pretty awesome and just held it as fact and like doesn't matter, like it's so easily fact-checked.
Speaker 5:He's like no, no, I'm just going to say it regardless. That's kind of like what we do here on the podcast Pretty much.
Speaker 3:Yeah. No, dante Colbert for Peyton Manning is a good deal.
Speaker 5:It's very fair for both sides. They can say whatever they want.
Speaker 2:It wasn't a deal.
Speaker 5:It was for Derek. It doesn't need to be correct.
Speaker 2:That's true, I believe them, I sure believe them. I believe me not making playoffs in fantasy for 10 straight years.
Speaker 1:Well, Mark, thanks for taking the time to really give us the idea of just the typical political leanings of our ideologies of today's, Because we kind of went through where we're at with what the tariffs are.
Speaker 5:but really didn't have an idea of what the general climate is looking like. Well, I'm impressed with your sourcing too. Tax Foundation is fantastic. Their stuff is really good. So if you use Tax Foundation, that's really good. It's kind of a center-right economic thing that gives really good numbers but even is critical of the right when they do stuff, so that's a great source.
Speaker 1:Not using the Young Turks or something critical of the right when they do stuff. So that's a great source. Not using the Young Turks or something, or ChatGPT, which John tends to use all the time. What about the Cato Institute? What do you think about them? I?
Speaker 5:love Cato. They're kind of a little too weird and libertarian on some stuff, but they're a very good think tank. They're just not useful.
Speaker 1:Is it true that that was founded by Cato Kaelin?
Speaker 5:Yes, it's little known but yes it's absolutely true.
Speaker 1:Well, thanks for taking your time, Mark. We don't want to take too much of your time, but we appreciate it.
Speaker 5:Hey, since Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1:Hey, what are you thankful for?
Speaker 5:I'm thankful for two of the best friends that I'm going to ask for that host this podcast. We're thankful for two of the best friends that I'm going to ask for that host this podcast.
Speaker 1:We're thankful for you, Mark.
Speaker 5:I'm saying that seriously, man. What's wrong with you? I know.
Speaker 1:You're the best.
Speaker 5:Well, have a good Thanksgiving. I'll talk to you guys later.
Speaker 1:Hey, mark, take care, Mark C, mark C, everybody. Well, there you go. That was a pretty good. You love tariffs no, I don't.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you do. I love governments that spend less for things, that spend less money, but we didn't really even get into that, which I should have.
Speaker 1:Well, I would have, but you guys were bantering. I felt a bit. I felt a bit, bro, I didn't feel rushed, but I didn't want to keep him on for too long, okay but I just, I, I uh, I don't like tariffs, I think it's's stupid, it's not going to work. But, like I said you got to love it, you were defending them to the.
Speaker 2:I'm defending a conversation. I want to return back to Grover Cleveland's economic policies.
Speaker 4:Low tariffs low taxes for everybody, everything.
Speaker 1:Who would you rather have a beer with Grover Cleveland or John Tyler? That's tough.
Speaker 2:That's tough. They both were ostracizedized, one by his own party, the other one was dude. They fought, they were fighters, man, and they believed in classically liberal principles of less limited government and anti-corruption. Call it like they saw it. And I just think the biggest thing is whether you tariff something. Why do we have to keep funding the federal government with the way in which we're funding it? Is it to pay Social Security? Is it to pay for our military? Is it to pay for all these other transfer programs, all these other things under the sun?
Speaker 2:The government does too much, and until you decide, what should your government be doing for you? If anything it doesn't, the taxes will find their way into their pockets. They'll tax whatever they can. Tariffs aren't great If you have income tax. If you don't, if you get tariffs in exchange for income tax, it's worth a conversation. Yeah, I don't want tariffs either, because I want the government to not even need enough money to have to have tariffs, because they shouldn't be doing that much. They're responsible for ensuring free trade amongst the states and common defense. So that 5% tariff? I don't understand why. For 5%, alexander Hamilton to his credit, he would say we need enough money to at least build our national defense, a shared common defense. That's why we have this constitution and we want to maintain free trade amongst the states. You can't have one state like Alabama throwing up tariffs against Massachusetts Last thing you want. So the federal government shouldn't need that much money to do what it was constitutionally authorized.
Speaker 1:Well, who's going to set up the pardoning of the turkeys at Thanksgiving?
Speaker 2:Share it amongst the governors. Governor can do it. Why can't a governor pardon them?
Speaker 1:You think there should be 50 turkeys pardoned every Thanksgiving? There won't be any for us to eat.
Speaker 2:What were the names of the ones that just got pardoned, Like Lacey and Trixie or something? So that's terrorist man. So that's terrorist.
Speaker 1:And one thing that we really. I really just want to touch on one last thing for a treat for the fans, one thing that could really happen here and you never know if we raise these taxes enough, where we stop exporting goods or the prices just get up to, or no, I guess it would be if we get rid of tariffs or no. So one of the things that happened in the 70s, you figure after. So, after these, after these tariffs got reduced, industries booming. I think there was a big change in just the american attitude, is my opinion.
Speaker 1:the economy of america changed into bringing in technology japanese cars coming yeah like not, it wasn't so much hard work. America made steel, all this stuff. It kind of started China. Obviously, all these other countries started getting more efficient with lower wages and all this stuff to be able to compete with America. I think we were on sugar high too.
Speaker 2:What do you mean? I think too much too fast. World War II we turned on the accelerators, went to the moon, went to the moon A lot of fast, maybe.
Speaker 4:Too fast.
Speaker 2:Why can't you have slow and steady 2% a year? Every year we all get used to it.
Speaker 1:Hey, that's not a bad point, we get the sugar highs.
Speaker 2:We got the sugar high. World War II where our parents, when we were in war we cranked out 10 aircraft carriers in a week or whatever. We made so many you know aircraft or whatever it was during world war two, the crazy you know armaments they were pumping out.
Speaker 1:For the rest, for the allied forces, it's hard to keep up with and I think their kids had a lot of those baby boomers during the seventies had a lot of like little pp envy and one of those baby boomers is a man but then grew up on long island, named sir william joel, and he wrote a song that pretty well reflected the times of when the industry started going away from the these towns, these steel towns, these coal towns any of these towns really and really wrote a song that kind of put into perspective what it was like to grow up in those areas. Right, and we would like to sing that for our fans as a sign off to our tariff talk.
Speaker 2:I'm excited for it All right.
Speaker 4:Well, we're living here in Allentown and they're closing all the factories. Down Out in Bethlehem they're killing time Filling out forms standing in line. Well, our fathers fought the Second World War, spent their weekends off the Jersey Shore, met our mothers at the USO, asked them to dance. Dance with them blue and we're living here in Allentown, but the restless disc was handed down and it's getting very hard to say Well, we're waiting here in Allentown For the Pennsylvania we never found For the promises our teachers gave If we worked hard, if we behaved.
Speaker 4:So the graduations hang on the wall, but they never really helped us at all. No, they never taught us what was real Iron and coke Chromium steel. And we're living here in Allentown, but they're taking all the coal from the ground. And the union people crawled away. That's all I know. I don't know how that part goes. Every child had a pretty good shot. Well, I'm living here in Allentown and it's hard to keep a good man down, but I won't be getting up today.
Speaker 1:Do you think there's anybody in the country who thinks that the government should spend more money?
Speaker 2:Yes, Do you For welfare programs and relief programs at bare minimum?
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Like your average. If you just pay, why can't? Well the government should be paying more money for yeah, I guess but like overall.
Speaker 2:But I think, do we need to spend more money on our military? I think no. The only person who before that is like someone in the military industrial complex. I don't think anyone could say with a straight face we need more military spending for our comp, for our defense, to defend our nation's borders. I don't think that's true. I mean we could defend the border in a minute if we said as much military to the southern border like all of it could be defended. But I don't think they're arguing that why have the military?
Speaker 1:I don't do that.
Speaker 2:Founding fathers would ask the same question, like we should just do that. Standing armies, what do you? Well, the devil will find work for idle hands, I guess I don't know. You have money, you get these programs come in place. They come and go. You build structures out. I'm wrapping up the fall of the roman empire in my podcast right now and yeah, it just kind of goes to, kind of just collapses on itself eventually if you don't, you know, have a wayward arrow for your culture, your society, like just people expect too much from their government now yeah what are you thankful for, now that it's?
Speaker 2:a podcast. People expect too much from their government. Now, yeah, what are you thankful for Now that it's a podcast? Me too. It's equipment that we were able to do the podcast on.
Speaker 1:I wonder if this was made in China. I wonder how many tariffs this went through to get here Last bottle of table.
Speaker 2:we're sitting on Bottlehead of John Tyler staring at us.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm happy for that. I'm happy for being able to help Ukraine with their war. Russia that we have should have nothing to do with. I appreciate I'm being thankful for that.
Speaker 2:It was a ceasefire in Israel, sure.
Speaker 4:I'm grateful for history in Israel.
Speaker 2:Sure. I'm grateful for history.
Speaker 1:This Smoot-Hawley act has got me on tilt. It sounds like exactly what they did, like the inflation tariffs. Just like in the Great Depression, the economy stinks tariffs. What else do we do it?
Speaker 2:seems like almost. It's like spending less money is not an option. I'll never get that either.
Speaker 1:We're spending the money to pay for our interest, but then Trump has this DOGE, this D-O-G-E, the Department of Government Efficiency, creating another.
Speaker 4:Department of.
Speaker 2:Government. I mean on that level, Even if you agree with it.
Speaker 1:I like the intent but create something, unless it's like a, unless it's like one person that volunteers to do it. Like is Elon getting paid? Like maybe he's not, I don't even know and I'm sure he's going to cut things.
Speaker 2:You know that is government, his business interests, I mean yeah, well, it's a sub is. Mark His business interests. I mean he got tons of subsidies. Mark C knows all about that. All the subsidies he got.
Speaker 1:I don't really like somebody in private business being that far into it, as long as he can keep his business out of it. But you can't.
Speaker 2:It should be a tax on yourself. George Washington went away from his estate, went away from Mount Vernon to serve for eight years. He came back. The thing was in shambles because it was a public duty and a service to the country it was duty. Like I'm not going to make money from this, I'm going to personally lose out by serving my country. Like it will be a tax on myself to be a public servant.
Speaker 1:Well, maybe we make money from it's. Yet the it's a tariff, Well, maybe we make money from it. It's yet to be heard. If that's what's going to happen with Elon, maybe he'll show up, and you know space, sending rockets to Mars.
Speaker 2:I can't be, I can't be a top 20 list of most important things this world's facing right now.
Speaker 1:I can't be sending rockets to Mars, well, market.
Speaker 2:Well, sending things to Mars reentry of catching rockets on reentry.
Speaker 1:Cool. I like cool technology. In my opinion, space exploration is the biggest waste of money.
Speaker 2:People had the argument when we went to the moon.
Speaker 1:I don't think the arguments changed. What did we get from going to the moon Tang? It's so absurd. Why? Why do we have a whole department exploring what's so absurd? Why? Why do we have a whole department exploring what's going to happen?
Speaker 2:Unless I thought, the moon, if we put something on there that could be a satellite that could be used as a weapon of war against either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union against us, like I don't really know, I think it was just like a. We can do it if we set our minds.
Speaker 1:But like safety, okay know, I think it was just like a, we can do it if we set our minds like but like safety, okay, say, we see it, we see an asteroid hurdling towards Earth and NASA sees it, or I guess NASA is not a thing anymore, or is it? I don't know. I don't really understand that either space force, whatever but they see it, they're like, well, okay, the asteroids come in, asteroids come in. Okay, what are we going to do about that? There's nothing we really can do for cool except for Armageddon, that was a good movie.
Speaker 1:The probably the best thing to come out of space exploration and science was the movie Armageddon. In my opinion, my favorite part of it Teflon on pot or tax. They always say, like duct tape and stuff which I get, like it's about all this byproduct. All these, all these like research things are byproducts of that same thing.
Speaker 2:You'll come up with new advances in weapon technology and even even medical technology from the Civil War. We learned a ton about, you know, met. We made tons of medical events even in the four years of the Civil War. But do you have to fight the wars and yeah, go to space to get those inventions. Can we just have smart people try to figure this stuff out without doing those things?
Speaker 1:I mean, I guess there will be things that there will always be things that you unintentionally discover.
Speaker 2:Maybe this planet is beyond replete, it's beyond saving at this point, and maybe it has been for a while. The billionaires know that we have to leave. Oh, why else would they be doing it? They're trying to colonize other places, are they?
Speaker 1:I haven't done that good of a job. They make movies about it. They got those two astronauts stuck up in the space station.
Speaker 2:Maybe we've just breached the fifth wall or the fifth age. We're in another age of.
Speaker 1:It seems like we're going back to the third age?
Speaker 2:I don't know.
Speaker 1:I mean to go back to what we were doing in like 1830 is like insane 1894. Do you think that the harris campaign could have maybe gotten their point across about tariffs a little bit better had they talked about the history of tariffs like we just went over, yes, like if they would have been like listen, listen, guys, what he's talking about doing was what happened right before the Great, or like during the Great Depression.
Speaker 2:Like make yeah and stick with Smoot-Hawley. Like definitely stick with running with Smoot-Hawley.
Speaker 1:But the problem is they can't do that because they're pro-tariff too.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, they already jettison at that point, so they probably should have leaned into it even harder.
Speaker 1:But they have those tariffs in place. So Trump was able to say, like tariffs, what's wrong with my tariffs? They kept them in place. So they kind of couldn't really do that. But they could say like Trump's just going to raise them and look what happens when you raise them. I don't know.
Speaker 2:All the left has is raising taxes on billionaires to pay their fair share. That's literally all they could. That's their only economic policy. What's kind of what you want to, though? No, I'm not saying I want to tax anyone anything beyond. I don't think I need to tax. Why tax?
Speaker 1:You can't single out people. Flat sales tax would be kind of cool.
Speaker 2:But that only is cool. Again, I think you can only charge a realistic amount that people can afford if the government doesn't need that much to fund itself. That's the issue. We spend too much money. The tax would only have to be a small amount because the government shouldn't be doing that much, but it does.
Speaker 1:All right fans. Well, on that note, I hope everyone had a safe and healthy Thanksgiving. Make sure you tell everyone in your life that you're thankful for them and we're thankful for every one of you all 10 of you. We're as thankful as equally as we're equally as thankful for each and every one of you.
Speaker 2:ELE on this podcast. You guys know that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, anything else to leave them with, john, you good.
Speaker 2:Good, you guys know it. Say it with me, stay curious.
Speaker 1:Alright, fans, we'll catch you on the next one.
Speaker 5:Come on, man, I got hairy legs.