Posted on 03/11/2018 11:56:45 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In the wake of the dual setback to conventional Wall Street-oriented conservatives represented by the president’s decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, and the resignation of his chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, there’s a new fear in regular Republican circles. It’s that the Trump adviser who triumphed over Cohn in the tariffs battle might soon claim his old job.
Yes, there’s some buzz that Peter Navarro, head of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, wants a promotion to the top economic gig. And as Jonathan Swan of Axios suggests, that’s freaking out people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who don’t share Navarro’s economic nationalist bent.
Choosing Navarro would be the path of least resistance for Trump’s trade agenda, but it would cause something approaching a riot on Capitol Hill and within the White House. Senior officials tell me they expect the entire National Economic Council staff would quit their posts immediately if Trump appoints Navarro; and Republicans on the Hill would go crazy. Republican leaders view Navarro as a menace and a danger to both the U.S. and world economies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Gary Cohen was poison. It does seem that he was the one bringing the Goldman Sachs globalist pro-banking agenda into the WH.
“Choosing Navarro would be the path of least resistance for Trump’s trade agenda, but it would cause something approaching a riot on Capitol Hill and within the White House. Senior officials tell me they expect the entire National Economic Council staff would quit their posts immediately if Trump appoints Navarro; and Republicans on the Hill would go crazy. Republican leaders view Navarro as a menace and a danger to both the U.S. and world economies.”
In other words, the right candidate for the job.
Even a little mouse strikes fear into the GOP.
Good. Let the globalist elite sweat and shake
May be an issue of DCians VS USAians.
I read New York Magazine articles with a jaundiced eye.
Most likely yellow journalism.
Yeah, Ed wrote all of that as if it’s a bad thing...
Does anyone find it funny that when a guy like Navarro, who has been a democrat his whole life, may get promoted to to top economic advisor for Trump, the democrats are up in arms? The reality is that Navarro is not wrong. Nor are the people that oppose him. If free trade is abused to the point where trade is free on our side but not on anyone else’ then there is an opportunity. Our consistency of going for free trade while not defending our goods abroad has left us with an easy shot and freer trade.
A trade war played correctly will be in our long term advantage. And will likely have little short term consequence. China and Europe will spout off about Trumps protectionism. But if Trump threatens Europe’s cars and China’s electronics, it will be the foreigners who blink first. They already have tariffs on our goods. And while those tariffs exist, the country is getting good money. Its a tax that America pays to sell our stuff. In short we are splitting our profits with the likes of France or China.
America is likely to get into this game as well. Our government will charge for goods that enter our ports. Yes its a tax. But if our factories don’t have this tax on finished products than we are likely to have more jobs. And we can support lower business taxes as well. Trump calls it the mirror tariff. We just charge the same tariff that our companies pay on the other side.
Navarro’s unpopularity is with big donors. Those people who have had success writing exceptions into trade law. And these people can be democrats or republicans.
Socialist, Corporatist and Capitalist economists (and MBAs and everyone in related fields) have come to agree to much on the Post WWII global economy.
There is a lack of thoughtful, creative and/or contrarian thinking. We are entering a new phase of the information age where information is even more valuable than in the past.
The biggest benefit of promoting Navarro would be that it would challenge the Conventional Wisdom that all the economists agree on. They are probably right about the past.
But previous track record does not guarantee future prescience.
I strongly agree with Navarro’s left wing, big government view of the role of government in the economy. But we do need to question the conventional wisdom that the future is the same as the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.