Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.

 

 


Trade Deficit in Manufactured Products Hits Record in April

June 2, 2017

The Department of Commerce released the April figures for international trade in goods and services this morning, and the trade deficit rose again to its worst reading since January – $47.6 billion.  Imports were up and exports were down.  But you can’t even find the worst news in the report – the deficit in manufactured goods.  The Commerce Department doesn’t even bother to calculate it.  But I do.  By subtracting from the overall deficit the figures for services, foods, feeds, beverages and petroleum products, you can arrive at a pretty good estimation of trade in manufactured goods.  The news is bad.  The deficit in manufactured products rose to $63.4 billion, beating the previous record set in March, 2015 by $0.1 billion.  Imports rose to a record level and exports fell to their lowest level in five months.  Here’s a chart:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  As you can see, the deficit in manufactured goods continues to worsen at the same pace that it has since 2010, more than doubling in seven years.

Separately this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a weak employment report for the month of May.  Unemployment dropped, but thanks only to the old “mysteriously vanishing labor force” trick used so often during the Obama administration.  The employment level actually fell by 133,000 workers.  An accurate reading of unemployment would have had it actually worsening by two tenths of a percent.  Manufacturing employment fell yet again by another 1,000 jobs.  No surprise, in light of what’s happening with the trade deficit.  Add this data to the extremely weak first quarter GDP and you have a picture of an economy that’s stalled and might be on the brink of something worse.

So President Trump now owns the worst performance in manufactured goods of any president.  He vowed to “Make America Great Again.” The first step in that process is to stop it from getting worse.  That hasn’t happened yet.  Talk and optimism will only carry you so far.  There’s been little action.  There’s no border tax.  NAFTA still stands.  Jobs are still heading to China and Mexico.

To be fair, it’s still early in his administration, and the Republican congress has done nothing either.  But I fear that the opportunity to “make America great again” is being frittered away.


Trump and Ross played for fools by China

May 13, 2017

In 2016, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $347 billion.  The deficit in manufactured goods was $372 billion.  China accounts for over half of the total U.S. trade deficit.  The deficit with China is responsible for the loss of five million manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  and for the downward spiral in Americans’ standard of living.

Throughout the campaign, Trump promised to impose tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese goods to restore a balance of trade.  It’s one of the key reasons he was elected.  In his inaugural address, Trump declared:

“These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public. But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists. Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation, an education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge. And the crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

“Right here and right now.”  Yet, four months into his administration, details of his plans for trade with China are beginning to emerge, as reported in this Reuters article.

The United States and China have agreed to take action by mid-July to increase access for U.S. financial firms and expand trade in beef and chicken among other steps as part of Washington’s drive to cut its trade deficit with Beijing.

That’s it?!?!?!?  Beef and chicken!?!?!?!?  So instead of “right here and right now,” what we get instead is that, six months into his administration, we might be able to sell China a few more hamburgers?  And what do we get in return?  Chicken imports.  Who in their right minds would eat chicken imported from China?  We can’t even feed our pets dog food from China for fear that it’ll kill them, which has actually happened.  And we supposedly got some cooperation from China in reining in North Korea.  Doesn’t Trump realize that China and North Korea work together to blunt any action on trade?  Maybe that’s what we need – some puppet state to develop nuclear weapons to threaten China.  Then we can agree to pull in on their reins if China will just agree to some heavy tariffs.

What will the next 100 days of negotiations yield?  A side order of fries?

As has always happened following trade negotiations with the U.S., Chinese President Xi must have been rolling in the aisle with laughter on his plane ride home from Mar-a-Lago.  Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were played for total fools.  This is beyond pathetic.  It’s an insult to Trump’s supporters and all American workers.

“This will help us to bring down the deficit for sure,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said at media briefing in Washington. “You watch and you’ll see.”

Oh, we’re watching, Wilbur, and I already know what we’ll see.  Nothing.  The trade deficit with China will, if anything, get worse.  America’s been suckered yet again.


Apple’s “Advanced Manufacturing Fund” a PR Gimmick

May 4, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fund-idUSKBN17Z2PI

Today Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, announced plans to set up a $1 billion “advanced manufacturing” fund, making it sound as though it’s going to create manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  (See the above-linked article.)  It’s actually nothing more than a clever public relations ploy – a gimmick designed to polish Apple’s tarnished image.

Ever since Trump’s message about bringing back manufacturing jobs began to resonate with voters, free trade advocates like Cook have begun waging a campaign on two fronts designed to blunt any efforts aimed at reversing globalization.  On the one hand, there has suddenly emerged a lot of talk about how most manufacturing jobs have actually been lost to automation and not trade policy which is, of course, a lie.  If the plant you worked in has just closed, you merely need to ask yourself where that product is now being made.  Is it being made by robots in a new factory, or is it now being made in a sweat shop in China or Mexico?  The answer is obvious.

The other tactic is to make themselves appear to be gung-ho for American manufacturing, lest they risk alienating the growing majority of Americans who now see free trade as a drag on the American economy.  As part of this effort, they’ve advanced the notion of “advanced manufacturing” – something that will somehow create jobs by developing factories so automated that human workers aren’t required.  Sounds like double-talk?  Of course it is.  But they believe you’re too dumb to see through it.

Apple is a perfect case in point.  Their products are considered the epitome of “high tech.”   Such a “high tech” company must be on the cutting edge of “advanced manufacturing,” right?  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The manufacture of Apple’s electronic gizmos is about as low-tech as you can get.  Contracted out to companies like China’s Foxconn, Apple’s products are pieced together by hand, utilizing thousands of workers in sweat shop conditions to insert tiny components into circuit boards.  Truth be told, the manufacture of cars in Detroit assembly plants which utilize robots for hundreds of assembly tasks is far more advanced than anything that Apple does.  The manufacturing jobs in those assembly plants are well-paid, high-skilled jobs.  Interfacing with all of that automation is no job for dummies.

Apple could move their manufacturing back to the U.S. today, but they resist for two reasons.  One is the investment that would be required to build proper manufacturing facilities that comply with environmental and labor laws.  More importantly, however, they resist because they need to maintain their manufacturing presence in China in order to have access to the Chinese market.  China’s leaders are smart enough to insist that products sold in China be made in China.

Cook wants you to think of Apple as a good corporate citizen of the United States, interested in creating jobs for Americans.  Give me a break.  They want to sell you an iPhone.  They want you to pay as much as possible (regardless of whether or not you can actually afford it) for something that’s made as cheaply as it can be, and they want you to pay for it with money earned anywhere except at Apple.

Gimmicks like these won’t bring manufacturing jobs back.  Only tariffs (or “border taxes” or whatever you want to call them) will force companies like Apple to manufacture in the U.S. and actually create real jobs for American workers.

 


Trump’s “Faulty Trade Math?” Accuser’s math is faulty.

April 29, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trade-analysis-idUSKBN17U2SL

This is rich!  In this above-linked op-ed piece (which isn’t identified as such but, rather, is presented as a factual report), the author takes Trump to task for “faulty math” regarding trade policy.  But it’s the author of this article whose math is “faulty” at best, or deliberately misleading at worst.  First, let’s consider some of the statements leading up to his “math.”

In the case of Mexico, the American companies that exported a quarter of a trillion dollars of goods and services to that country last year would be out a customer, and likely cut jobs.

Those American companies that tried to replace the $323 billion in Mexican imports would likely do so at a higher cost — assuming they are in the United States to begin with.

They would be in the United States if similar policies are applied to other countries, which would only make sense.  Then, yes, the domestic manufacturers would likely replace those Mexican imports at a higher cost.  But the author conveniently ignores the fact that the increased demand for labor in the U.S. would drive wages up even faster.

“Americans seem to really like guacamole,” Noland said, “but the idea that we are going to have giant greenhouses and lots of avocados and limes – the fact that we are purchasing them from the Mexicans rather than producing them at home tells you producing them at home is more expensive. We can stop trading with the Mexicans, and have $60 billion less in consumption.”

Seriously?  This is the argument for not bringing a million manufacturing jobs back from Mexico?  Avocados and guacamole?  If they cost 20% more, people won’t buy them?  They’ll just consume less?  They won’t serve onion dip at their parties instead?  Come on!  How much of your disposable income do you spend on avocados and guacamole?  How much more income would you have to spend on them if your wages went up?

By the statistics most widely accepted among economists, the U.S. position with the rest of the world has been steadily improving as investment flows into the country from abroad and supports millions of jobs.

This is an outright lie.  The flow of capital investment has been negative for decades.  While some investment dollars do come into the U.S., far more have left, making net investment a big drag on jobs.

OK, now for the “faulty math:”

Even if Trump achieved his wildest success, and eliminated the United States’ $500 billion trade deficit solely through increased exports that boosted gross domestic product on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it would do little to dent the estimated $7 trillion in government deficits his tax plan is projected to generate over the next decade.

Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, said that every dollar of gross domestic product generates about 17.6 cents in federal government revenue, meaning the $500 billion trade shortfall would translate into just $88 billion in new taxes.

That part is true but, as free trade advocates tend to do, he’s presented only one half of the equation.  That annual trade deficit of $500 billion (actually $800 billion if talking about manufactured products) is a drain on the economy.  If every dollar of that deficit isn’t re-injected into the economy in some way, the result is a permanent recession.  Since we’ve already noted that capital investment is also a net outflow, the only way left to re-inject that money into the economy is through federal deficit spending, in all its forms.  Grants for education, for police and fire, for infrastructure. safety net programs like welfare and medicaid, health care premium support under the Affordable Care Act, student loans … the list goes on and on.  All of this federal spending is made necessary by the trade deficit drain of money from the economy.

So, not only would restoring a balance of trade produce an additional $88 billion in new federal revenue (nothing to sneeze at and it would likely be more than that), but it would also cut federal spending by $500 billion.  That’s a net impact of nearly $600 billion per year – enough for the federal government to balance its budget.  And it would likely pave the way for cuts to personal income tax rates, saving all of us a bundle.

The case for free trade made by its advocates often reminds me of the commercials we all see on TV for the local casinos.  Everyone gathered around the blackjack table or the crap table pumps their fists and high-fives their friends as they celebrate another win and rake in their money.  Everyone’s winning and having a great time!  “Casinos are a big boost for the local economy,” we’re always told when some development group wants to build a new one in your community.  The casino owners and a few surrounding hotels and restaurants are winners.  You’re not.  If you’re someone who frequents one of these places, you’re a loser.  You may not want to admit it, but you are – you’re a loser.  Don’t feel bad.  Everyone who goes there is a loser.  Everyone who owns a business where you’d spend your money if you hadn’t lost it at the casino is also a loser.  Casinos are a net drag on the broader community, siphoning away money that people need for other things.

It’s exactly the same with a trade deficit.  Global corporations are winners.  The rest of us are losers.  But they want you to think that free trade benefits you in ways that are just too difficult to understand or quantify.  Remember Enron, the huge “energy trading company” that was such a darling of Wall Street back in the ’90s?  No one could figure out exactly how they made money.  Enron executives condescendingly sneered that their business was just too sophisticated and complicated for most investors to understand.  And lots of otherwise-intelligent people were sucked in.  Eventually, the whole thing collapsed spectacularly and was exposed as a giant scam.  Investors had been played for fools.  That’s exactly the same scam free traders are running when they tell you that it’s not just a matter of money in versus money out.

If trade deficits don’t matter, why is it that countries like Mexico, China, Germany, Japan, South Korea and others are so adamantly opposed to taking their turn at it?  It’s because they know the real math.


February Trade Report: New Administration, Same Old Deficit

April 4, 2017

OK, I know it’s not reasonable to expect anything different.  After all, Trump hasn’t yet had a chance to implement new trade policies that would have any meaningful impact on our trade results.   What he has done is meet with some leaders of nations who are among the worst offenders in terms of their trade surplus with the U.S.:  Mexico, Japan and Germany, most notably.  He meets with Chinese president Xi Jinping in a couple of days.  Reportedly, he hasn’t pulled any punches so far in expressing his displeasure with the trade deficit and has vowed to take tough action (like a “border tax”) to change the situation.  So, one thing we can say about the early evidence provided by the February trade results is that tough talk has absolutely no effect on trade results.  (As if the trade results of past administrations aren’t sufficient evidence.)

In February, the deficit dipped slightly.  Here’s a chart of the deficit in manufactured goods:  Manf’d Goods Balance of Trade.  As you can see, though the deficit dipped slightly from January, it remains stuck in the $55-62 billion range it’s been in for two years.

As time goes on, I grow more nervous that Trump will cop out on the trade issue just as Obama did, as more and more meetings with world leaders and business leaders try to convince him of the intangible, unquantifiable benefits of free trade.  It worked on Obama.  Hopefully, they’ll find Trump a tougher nut to crack.  Time will tell.  If there is no border tax in Trump’s tax overhaul plan, we’ll know that he caved to the pressure.  We’re watching, President Trump.  You can kiss your supporters goodbye if you don’t come through on this campaign promise.


Trump to Confront China’s Xi This Week

April 3, 2017

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKBN175025

In the wake of the Obama administration, it still makes me nervous any time the president sits down for talks with a foreign leader.  For Obama, there were no concessions too big for him to make.  Foreign leaders played him like a fiddle.  Americans came out the losers every time.  I say this as one who had big hopes for Obama and voted for him in 2008.

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, Chinese President Xi Jinping travels to Florida this week to meet President Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort.  The media will be focused on dealings aimed at reining in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.  But the real story will be their talks on trade.  America’s failed trade policy is far and away the biggest contributor to our economic decline.  All of our economic problems and virtually every other problem that is impacted by monetary resources allocated to deal with it can be blamed on our trade deficit.  The budget deficit, nearly all of our national debt, our crumbling infrastructure, our health care crisis, homelessness, poverty …. you name it, they’re all directly linked to the drain of our financial resources wrought by the trade deficit.  And no country is more responsible for that drain than China, who accounts for nearly one half of the entire deficit.

On Friday, the U.S. president sought to push his crusade for fair trade and more manufacturing jobs back to the top of his agenda by ordering a study into the causes of U.S. trade deficits and a clamp down on import duty evasion.

If the President is truly interested in the cause of U.S. trade deficits, he need look no further than this blog and can learn all he needs to know by reading Five Short Blasts.   Nations who come to the trading table with nothing to offer but bloated labor forces and markets emaciated by gross overcrowding are the cause of trade deficits.  By this criteria, China is the worst of the worst.  Only tariffs (or a “border tax,” if that term is less onerous) can maintain a balance of trade when dealing with such countries.  Negotiations are pointless since the only possible outcome is to trust the other side to take actions to rein in their appetite for our market.  Decades of experience since the beginning of the failed experiment with “free” trade has proven that they won’t.

So far, President Trump has proven that, for the most part, he can be trusted to follow through on his campaign promises.  No promise was bigger than getting tough with China on trade.  It seems that Germany’s Angela Merkel found him to be a very different president from Obama in her recent meeting with Trump.  Hopefully, he’ll be just as tough on Xi.  It seems that Trump’s “border tax” idea is now becoming more accepted as a crucial element of his upcoming tax reform plan.  Let’s hope he doesn’t negotiate away any of it this week.