Catching up on some things I’ve commented on in the past. Remember when Donald Trump said he would end the Ukraine War in 24 hours? I made some suggestions on how he might accomplish this goal. Mainly, it consisted of ways to bring the pain of War to Russia—longer-range weapons to shoot back. As usual, the President ignores my advice. He still tells Ukraine not to hit key cities in Russia. Over half a year into his term, and the War rages on worse than ever.

After several pauses in aid to Ukraine, Trump has concluded that Putin is jerking him around. A former KGB officer can’t be trusted, who knew? Now he’s arranged to ship more arms to the embattled nation that our NATO allies will pay for. To many, this suggests a shift in Trump’s stance on the War.

I’m skeptical. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who in the past had good sources, says the new aid includes longer-range weapons and lifts range restrictions on some they already have. Still, unless these weapons hit the political centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, it won’t matter that much. Till the people of these cities face the same terror that the citizens of Kyiv experience now, Putin has no incentive to change. Yet, Trump says Ukraine shouldn’t hit Moscow.

The President also threatened tough action on the sanctions-tariff front but gave Putin 50 days’ notice before any implementation. After more than six months, why so much time? Is it to head off the Senate from passing the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill? The Senate should pass the bill now with its significant bipartisan majority to send a message to both Putin and Trump.

O.K., who left the closet door open and let Peter Navarro, the White House trade advisor, out? All I know is I woke up Friday morning to find Tariff Man, A.K.A. President Donald Trump had threatened the European Union with a 50% tariff on June 1st if they didn’t bend to his will. Added to this blast was a 25% tariff on any iPhones built outside the U.S. Apple has been moving production to India.

So much for the assurances uttered by those behind Trump’s first-term tax success; as I’ve pointed out, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Art Laffer led us to believe massive tariffs were only a tactic to obtain fairer trade terms. On “Liberation Day,” we saw high tariffs, only to be partially rolled back, but here we go again. How often do we hear the cry of “wolf” without any canine attack before we stop listening about wolves and anything else we hear from the Crier?

We may have legitimate complaints against our trading partners, and they have their concerns. But why not negotiate in good faith rather than making enemies out of friends and potential friends? Our relationship with Europe is already shaky over the Ukraine conflict and NATO. Do we need a more estrangement?

As the most populous nation on earth, India, as an ally, could help offset China. India is a rapidly developing nation willing to produce things we’ve been getting from China. We should be happy that Apple builds phones there rather than in China. No, Trump demands Apple make expensive phones in the U.S. India has every reason to feel stiffed by the U.S. Do we want to punish an American Tech company while we’re claiming that’s what the EU is doing? Why take business from India?

Trump claims he has all the cards, and everyone must give in to his desires. This blog is devoted to public policy, ours, and other nations. Looking at things from the perspective of different countries, Trump’s contention isn’t necessarily so.

You’re settling in to spend an evening watching an interesting-sounding movie, only to realize you’ve already seen it. That’s the feeling I got when Trump suddenly reversed course and paused some of his tariffs for 90 days. The reason the administration and, indeed, Trump himself provided is that all those seventy-five nations already ripping us off, except for China, were lining up to lift their tariffs and other actions and finally move to free trade while leaving China on the outside. It’ll take time to accept their surrender.

Prominent countries named as heading up the list of supplicants were Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Australia. These names rang a bell. Haven’t we sat down with these countries and others and worked out a lowering of tariffs and other trade restraints in the past? Then it came to me; we negotiated a trade treaty with these nations and seven others that accomplished these goals. It was called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Negotiated over several years by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who claimed “the deal set the ‘gold standard in trade agreements.” Twelve countries’ representatives O.K.’d the Treaty in 2016. It only needed to be sent to the Senate for approval by the new president.  

What happened then needs to be recalled and appraised in light of what is happening today. Donald Trump campaigned against the treaty, claiming it would join the already-in-effect NAFTA treaty in destroying middle America. This stance reflected his anti-free trade stance going back to the 1980s. What is surprising is that Hillary Clinton turned on her handiwork.

The last post dealt with the unreality of finding the workers required to make it all in the U.S. President Trump almost daily continues to announce a company or nation will invest billions in production in America. According to our leader, we’re bringing back all those good-paying jobs that left our Rust Belt states in despair. However, Hyundai’s proposed steel mill in Louisiana may be the exception that proves the rule.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. steel industry, mainly in the Midwest, has been retreating. Foreign competitors used their comparative advantages to deliver quality products at better prices. The fate of U.S. Steel illustrates the decline. Once dominant, with its vast mills in places like Gary, Indiana, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, it’s now a weak minor player subject to absorption by Nippon Steel.

In towns like Gary, Indiana, well-paid steel union members lived comfortable middle-class lives. Now, like their primary employer, the decline is evident. Even with ongoing government protections, U.S. Steel isn’t competitive.

So if the rule is that significant U.S. steel production isn’t competitive on the world market, why is Hyundai bucking the trend? Tariffs play a part, but they’ve only kept the industry on life support. Does Hyundai see a comparative advantage?

This plant will be an electric arc facility that will consume much reliable power. Where better to locate than a place where natural gas is plentiful? This plant highlights our comparative advantage in energy production. In the modern world, machines do the heavy lifting, requiring inexpensive, reliable energy sources. If the government doesn’t get in the way, the U.S. has an energy cost advantage over almost all other nations.

Germany has learned this the hard way. Using cheap Russian natural gas to run its industrial complex, it produced the products that made the nation a great exporter. The Ukraine war cut its Russian gas imports while it was bringing online only unreliable wind and solar to replace its nuclear plants. Germany is struggling because it’s burning coal and importing more expensive natural gas.