Biden Tackles Minor Corporate Abuses While Ignoring the Biggest and Most Obvious

July 11, 2021

As reported in this Reuters article, Biden has signed an executive order that tackles many corporate abuses in an effort to help American consumers. Good for him. Many of these actions have been long overdue. But he has completely ignored the one “corporate abuse” that dwarfs all others in terms of its impact on American workers. I’m talking about the trade deficit and the practice of off-shoring millions of manufacturing jobs.

To his credit, while ignoring the abuses that Biden addressed with this executive order, Trump is the only president since World War II who took the trade deficit seriously and took concrete steps to address it.

You may wonder why I focus so much attention on the trade deficit since the purpose of my book, Five Short Blasts, and the purpose of this blog, is to raise awareness of the economic consequences of overpopulation – namely, that falling per capita consumption as over-crowding worsens must inevitably drive up unemployment and poverty. And poverty kills. Ultimately, if nothing else gets us first, it will prove to be mankind’s undoing.

It’s really not that hard to understand once you understand that increasing over-crowding as the population continues to grow inevitably drives down per capita consumption and, along with it, the need for labor. People living in crowded conditions live in ever-smaller dwellings. They own little furniture and appliances because there’s no room for them. They own less clothing because of a lack of closet space. They don’t have yards and gardens, so they don’t need tools to maintain them. They don’t own cars because roads are choked with traffic and there’s no place to park. So they don’t have garages. They don’t participate in sports because there’s nowhere left to play them. They don’t engage in recreational boating because launch and dock space is all taken.

You get the idea. But what does this have to do with trade? Consider a country with a reasonable population density. Let’s say there’s 100 million people in this country. Their lifestyle resembles that of the U.S. Now suppose that they engage in free trade with another nation that is far smaller – say one tenth the size – but also has 100 million people. It’s ten times as crowded and people live in conditions like those described in the previous paragraph. For that reason, their consumption is only half that of the first country.

Through free trade, these two countries, though each is still a sovereign state with borders, behave economically as one country. The work of manufacturing the products that their combined population needs is spread evenly across the work force, but the consumption of those products isn’t. Consumption in the 2nd country remains low because of their over-crowding. The end result is that the first country has lost 25% of their manufacturing jobs and has lost even more in terms of market share. In essence, the first country has been forced to pay the price for the 2nd country’s overpopulation.

By trading freely with the 2nd country, the first country has immediately taken on the economic traits of a country twice as populated – something it would have taken decades to happen through the course of normal population growth. Worsening unemployment and poverty are the inescapable consequences of free trade with overpopulated nations. This is why my concern for the economic consequences of overpopulation has driven me to put such heavy emphasis on trade.

With all of that as a backdrop, what has Biden done to address our massive trade deficit – now an annual one trillion dollars in trade in manufactured goods? Absolutely nothing. Oh, he’s paid some lip service to wanting to help American workers and has encouraged us to “buy American.” But he’s done nothing about our trade policy and hasn’t spoken a word about our trade deficit.

As reported this past week by the Commerce Department, our trade deficit in May continued to hover at a near-record level of $71.2 billion, the 2nd worst reading ever since setting a record of $75 billion in March. In fact, in his first four full months in office for which trade data is available – February through May of this year – Biden owns the four worst monthly trade deficits ever recorded.

Our largest trade deficit is with China. Thanks to Trump’s enactment of 25% tariffs on half of all Chinese imports, however, that deficit isn’t nearly what it once was. Our annual deficit with China peaked at $418 billion in 2018. Thanks to Trump’s tariffs, that fell to $344 billion in 2019, and fell again in 2020 to $310 billion. So far this year, it’s on track to remain at that level.

Trump left Biden the perfect tool to build on that progress. In January, 2020, he got China to sign the “Phase 1” trade deal which held at bay his threat to extend his tariffs to all Chinese imports in exchange for China’s agreement to dramatically increase their imports of American goods. What’s happened? China is failing miserably in its commitments and, not only has Biden done nothing to enforce the agreement, he hasn’t even acknowledged that the Phase 1 trade deal even exists. So far, through May, China is 39% behind its commitment on manufactured products, 43% short of its goal for agricultural products, and is a whopping 78% short of it goal for energy products. They’re barely exceeding their imports in 2017 which formed the baseline for the agreement.

So far, the Biden administration makes a good show of supporting American workers but, on this most critical issue – the one that would help us the most – all we hear from the White Houe is …….. the sound of crickets.


No One’s at the Wheel

May 13, 2021

As reported last week by the Commerce Department, the United States’ trade deficit in goods soared to a new monthly record in March of $91.6 billion – an annualized deficit of $1.1 trillion – led by a near-record deficit of $88.7 billion in manufactured goods. Here’s a chart of that deficit in manufactured goods dating back to 2010 when the monthly deficit was only $37 billion, an increase of 140 % in eleven years.

In 2010, the goods deficit with China accounted for half of our total goods deficit. In March of this year, that was down to 30%. Since October of 2018, the goods deficit with China has fallen by 36%. During that same time frame, the goods deficit with the rest of the world has skyrocketed by 580%. Think about that. A 580% increase with the rest of the world vs. a 36% decline in the goods deficit with China! That’s absolutely astounding!

That disparity in trade results in only 2-1/2 years demonstrates the power of tariffs in shaping global trade. The 25% tariff that Trump slapped on half of all Chinese imports in 2018 was a shot to the head – a bullet right between the eyes – for China’s ambitions to dominate global trade. Say what you will about Trump, but he was the first president since World War II to defy the free trade advocates and the World Trade Organization to enact such a bold tariff program. His only mistake was not extending the tariffs to a number of other overpopulated nations that feed on America’s economy to support their bloated labor forces.

But at least he left Biden with a powerful tool to slash the goods deficit with China even further – a proven tool that could be extended to other countries to finally restore a balance of trade. I’m talking about the “Phase 1” trade deal that Trump struck with China – a deal that would have forced them to dramatically step up their imports of American goods, or face the consequence of having that 25% tariff extended to all Chinese imports. The results were predictable. (In fact, I predicted China’s failure from the moment the deal was signed). They ended 2020 by falling short of their mututally-agreed goal by $62 billion, a full one third short of their goal. Through the first quarter of 2021, they’re on track to fall short of their 2021 goal by $127 billion.

So what has Biden done? Nothing. While expressing a desire to help American manufacturing, he’s been dead silent on the subject of our trade deficit and has never even mentioned the trade deal with China which they continue to blatantly ignore. The dashboard of America’s economy has a huge, glowing red gauge right in the middle that monitors our trade performance. The problem is that, like that Tesla in Texas that sheered in half against a tree as it rounded a curve, there’s no one at the wheel. Biden’s asleep in the passenger seat, oblivious to what’s happening in global trade and the devastation to our manufacturing economy. We’re approaching that curve and all we hear is snoring.


America’s Best Trade Partners

April 30, 2021

What’s it take to make the list of America’s 20 best trade partners? “Man-for-man,” (in other words, on a “per capita” basis) buy more from America than you sell to it. That’s it.

In my previous posts, we looked at our biggest trade deficits and biggest trade surpluses in 2020 and found that the population density of our trading partner was, by far, the biggest factor in determining whether our balance of trade would be a surplus or a deficit. On the surplus side, whether or not a country was a net oil exporter was also a factor, since all oil throughout the world is priced in U.S. dollars.

In my last post on the subject, we found that our biggest trade surpluses were with either sparsely populated countries or net oil exporters. But the list included both very large and very tiny countries. So let’s factor size out of the equation and see if population density is still a factor. Let’s look at the list of our biggest per capita trade surpluses in 2020. Here’s the list: America’s best trade partners in 2020.

The population density effect isn’t as clear on this list until you look at the population density of this group of nations as a whole – 22.5 people per square mile. Compare that to the density of the group of nations on the list of our twenty worst trade deficits – 360 people per square mile. Of the twenty nations on this list, thirteen are tiny nations, most of which are oil exporters. Two nations dominate this list – Canada and Australia – huge nations, comparable in size to the United States, with population densities of eleven and nine people per square mile respectively (compared to 93 people per square mile in the U.S.). Together, they account for 31% of our total trade surplus with the nations on this list.

This is a sad list. First of all, it doesn’t take much to make this list. If I were a country and I bought one recliner chair from the U.S., I’d be right at the top of the list. Secondly, our trade surpluses with the nations on this list has fallen by almost 9% over the past ten years. With the two dominant nations on the list – Canada and Australia – our surplus has declined by 33% and 34% respectively. Compare that to the 147% increase in our deficit with the nations on the list of our top 20 worst deficits. Also, consider that Djibouti made it onto this list of our top twenty surpluses solely on the basis of U.S. foreign aid to Djibouti. They didn’t even buy stuff from us. We gave it to them.

The fact is that American manufacturing is dying. 2020 marked the 45th consecutive year of ever-increasing trade deficits. We make less and less with each passing year, are forced to buy more from foreign countries, selling them less, and we export our high-paying jobs to them, all because we’re too stupid to factor the role of population density into our trade policy and apply tariffs to the most densely populated. In his first 100 days in office, President Biden, while proclaiming his desire to help American manufacturing, hasn’t levied a single tariff. He hasn’t lifted a finger to do anything meaningful to help American manufacturing workers.

So now we’ve looked at the two extremes of the trade spectrum – our twenty worst trade deficits and our twenty best trade surpluses. But that’s only 40 nations out of the more than 200 hundred around the world. Will the population density factor still be evident in 2020 when we look at trade with the entire world? We’ll see in one of my next posts.


Who’s afraid of Biden? Certainly not China.

April 20, 2021

At least that what the trade data for February, Biden’s first full month as president, suggests.

In January of 2020, China signed a new trade deal with the U.S. – the “Phase 1” deal – committing to specific and significant increases in its imports of American goods in exchange for the U.S. delaying its application of 25% tariffs to the remaining half of Chinese goods. (The U.S. had already levied a 25% tariff on half of all Chinese imports.)

In 2020, China fell woefully short of its commitment – 31% less than the required imports of American manufactured products and 27% below its commitment for agricultural products. In February of this year, China not only failed to meet its commitments under the Phase 1 deal, it didn’t even meet the 2017 baseline in a single category – not in manufactured goods, nor agricultural goods, nor energy products, nor total goods. Already lagging its commitments in January, Its imports collapsed in February, falling by 27%. So far, year-to-date for 2021, China is now 46% behind its commitments.

Why should China live up to its trade commitments? So far, Biden hasn’t acknowledged that the trade deal even exists, never mentioning it. But he’s talked of getting tough with China in general. This is a golden opportunity to show that he means business – that he’s willing to stand up for American workers and farmers. How can any world leader take him seriously when he won’t even enforce a signed-and-sealed trade deal that has clear commitments and clear consequences for failure to meet them?

Recently, Biden called the level of gun violence in the U.S. a “national embarrassment.” You know what’s really a national embarrassment? A president who doesn’t have the courage to stand up for American workers and enforce commitments that other nations have made! (And make no mistake, Biden’s not the first such president.) To use a couple of Biden’s own favorite expressions, “C’mon, man! Do something, for God’s sake!”


Just Use Tariffs

April 16, 2021

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/202104130705RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KBN2C01AL-OUSBS_1

The above-linked article is an interesting case study of the challenges involved in bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. The product in question is a semiconductor – a “chip” – that is in such short supply that it has forced the shutdown of some auto production in the U.S. The Biden administration is looking at ways to break our dependence on imported semiconductors.

Oddly, the article begins with what seems to be an American manufacturer – On Semiconductor – supplying chips to to Hyundai in South Korea, perhaps because the Reuters author, Hyunjoo Jin, is herself Korean. You’d think that Reuters could find some American to write about the actual subject of the article – the challenges Biden faces in bringing chip manufacturing back to the states – but apparently they couldn’t. Maybe we first need to begin by bringing news reporting back to the U.S.? But I digress.

Never mind all that. The point of the article is the complex supply chain engaged in delivering a semiconductor chip to an auto manufacturer that could just as easily be General Motors in Detroit as Hyundai in South Korea. The author chronicles the myriad of steps that begins in Italy and makes its way through Taiwan, Singapore and China, just to name a few. So it’s not just a matter of building a chip factory here. It would require a daisy-chain of factories to turn silicon wafers into the actual semiconductor chips. So the Biden administration is faced with subsidizing a whole array of industries to entice them to move manufacturing to the U.S. It’s enough to make your head spin. The article concludes with “Simply throwing money at this does not solve the problem. It is a more complex problem.”

Moving that supply chain back to the U.S. is certainly a very complex problem. Negotiating subsidies with a dozen or more companies to entice them to make such a move would be difficult enough, not to mention expensive for American taxpayers, if that’s the approach that the government is considering. But there’s another much simpler solution – one so simple that it would require little more than the stroke of Biden’s pen. All he has to do is sign an executive order to levy tariffs on all manufactured products from the countries responsible for our twenty largest trade deficits. Each of the countries mentioned in this article as being involved in this supply chain – China, Taiwan, Singapore (a small city-state located in Malaysia) and Italy – are on that list, responsible for our largest, ninth largest, tenth largest and eleventh largest trade deficits respectively.

Here’s what would happen. Eager to mitigate the tariff, GM (for example) would soon move the final step in that process, the manufacturing of the chip, to a new plant in the U.S., perhaps as a subsidiary. Other potential suppliers like Japan, Vietnam, Mexico or others wouldn’t be viable options since they too are on the tariff list.

Next, that new GM chip-making subsidiary, eager to avoid tariffs on its supplies from Taiwan, would soon implement plans to develop a supplier in the U.S. Once established, that company in turn would soon make plans to source its silicon wafers from a new plant in the U.S. instead of from Italy.

The Biden administration, and whatever administrations succeed it, would barely have to lift a finger to make it happen and it wouldn’t cost American taxpayers one penny in higher taxes. Would it raise the price of semiconductors and, consequently, the price of new cars? Sure, but not much. A few bucks at the most. But, in terms of your purchasing power, they’d actually be cheaper when you factor in the upward pressure on wages – your wages – as the result of the demand for labor from this whole new U.S.-based semiconductor supply chain.

There are two elements of a tariff plan that would be critical to making it effective. First of all, by targeting those twenty nations that are responsible for our biggest trade deficits, the tariffs would eliminate from consideration all those grossly overpopulated nations with bloated labor forces who prey on the American economy. When Trump enacted tariffs on Chinese products, suppliers simply moved their operations to some other such country like Vietnam or Mexico. Those wouldn’t be viable options if moving there failed to eliminate the tariffs.

Secondly, the tariffs must be applied to all manufactured products from those countries. Why? Because otherwise, making our autos more expensive would put them at a disadvantage to autos imported from those countries, but not if those imported autos are subject to the same tariffs. For example, suppose that the tariff is 50%. That tariff might raise the price of an American car by 25%, let’s say. But you’d still opt for the American car if cars from Mexico, Japan, Korea, China, Italy, etc. are priced 50% higher. Now we’re not talking about just cars, but every single manufactured product you can imagine. The manufacturing of every one of them would come back to the U.S. since American-made products would then be the cheaper option for American buyers.

By the way, there’s another factor to consider here. If you’re a globalist, you may be turned off by a proposal that seems “protectionist.” But if you are a globalist, you’re probably also a person who’s concerned about the environment. In all of the talk about fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, you never, ever hear mention of the role of the global supply chain in “fueling” the problem. Did you know that the ships that transport manufactured goods back and forth across oceans and around the globe, goods that could just as easily be made locally, burn five billion barrels of oil per year? Think about that. If the Biden administration really wants to have an impact on climate change, implementing this tariff plan is probably the best place to start.


In a test of Biden’s backbone, China reneges on trade deal.

March 10, 2021

Under a threat by the U.S. to expand its 25% tariffs to all Chinese imports, In January of 2020, China signed the “Phase 1” trade deal with the U.S. They agreed to boost their imports of American goods significantly in 2020, followed by an equally large increase in 2021. Very specific goals were set for boosting its imports of manufactured goods, energy products, agriculture products and overall goods. And the consequences for failing to meet those goals were also very specific – extending the 25% tariffs that already were applied to half of all Chinese imports to include the other half.

When it comes to trade, tariffs are the only thing China understands. Those tariffs were devastating for China. Their surplus of trade with the U.S. shrank by roughly 25% as companies abruptly abandoned China and took their manufacturing elsewhere. China was desperate to avoid any more tariffs.

However, based upon America’s long track record of failure to follow through on virtually every trade deal it’s ever negotiated when the terms of the deal weren’t met, China figured the same would happen again. So far, they’re right. Their imports fell far short of the 2020 milestones. Actually, they didn’t just fall short of the 2020 goals. They barely exceeded the 2017 baseline in all four categories of goods. The U.S. didn’t utter a peep of protest.

Now the results for January are in. Their imports of total goods from the U.S. fell 37% short of the goal. Their imports of manufactured goods were 42% short, and their imports of energy products were 71% below the goal. Only their imports of agriculture products were close to the goal, falling only 5% short.

Biden has vowed to continue Trump’s tough stance against China. He has to act. The whole world is watching. This wasn’t some Trump executive order that he can choose to ignore. It’s a signed agreement between the United States and China. If he allows them to thumb their nose at this trade deal, we’ll have zero credibility with the rest of the world regarding trade and beyond. We’ll be seen as a patsy. The U.S. is being economically crushed by our trade deficit, not just with China but with many other nations that prey on the U.S. market to support their bloated labor forces at the expense of American workers. If Biden won’t show some backbone on this critical issue, then no one can take him seriously on anything.


Biden “inherits” record trade deficit. Will he do anything about it?

February 8, 2021

The trade data released by the Commerce Department last week marked another sad milestone in America’s economic decline. The December balance of trade in manufactured goods set another new record -$87.3 billion – beating the previous record set only one month earlier. That’s an annualized deficit of $1.05 trillion and represents a loss of approximately fourteen million high-paying manufacturing jobs.

2020, the final year of Trump’s presidency, was by far the worst on record in terms of the trade deficit. In the title of this post, the word “inherits” is in quotation marks because while he now takes over that deficit from Trump, the truth is that Biden has played a key role in creating and exacerbating the deficit his entire adult life as a champion of globalist policies. He joined the U.S. senate in 1973. In 1975, America sadly experienced its final trade surplus, and has run an ever-growing deficit for the past forty-four years. He didn’t just “inherit” this problem. He played a key role in creating it, and it’s impossible to over-estimate the devastation done to our economy and to working Americans.

What will he do about it? Not a damn thing. His corporate benefactors, seeing more potential for profit growth in overseas markets than in the mature U.S. economy, have been paying him for decades to facilitate the transfer of America’s wealth and the export of American manufacturing jobs. He pays lip service to revitalizing American manufacturing, but that’s all it is.

Impeach Trump for inciting the Capitol building riot? Perhaps Biden should be impeached for his lifetime of work fomenting the unrest in this country that created the fertile ground for Trump’s rhetoric to take root.


Biden vows to continue Trump’s tough stance on China. Here’s his chance to prove it.

February 7, 2021

During the course of Trump’s administration, there was a massive shift in America’s, and indeed the entire world’s perception of China. In 2016, China was admired for its embrace of capitalism and its rapid pace of economic development. Chairman Xi Jinping was admired for slowly and in subtle ways guiding his country away from communism and, so the world hoped, shifting gradually toward democracy. Even Trump was charmed by his cow-eyed, benevolent smile and was taken in by his promise to be America’s economic partner.

Soon, however, all that began to change. China engaged in a massive military buildup, laid claim to a vast swathe of the South China Sea, bullied its neighbors there, engaged in ethnic cleansing of its Uighur muslim population and unleashed a horrible pandemic on the world’s population while covering up its role. Chairman Xi was named chairman of China for life. He quickly reneged on every promise he made on trade.

By his third year in office, Trump could see the truth – that Xi was a dictator bent on subjugating the U.S. and on world domination. They couldn’t be trusted. He imposed 25% tariffs on half of all their exports. With Trump on the verge of extending those tariffs across the board, China agreed to a deal – the “Phase 1” deal it signed in January of last year. In exchange for holding off on the additional tariffs (and likely counting on America’s traditional lack of enforcement of trade deals), China agreed to specific benchmarks for dramatically increasing its imports of American goods in 2020 and 2021.

By the end of Trump’s administration, the whole western world agreed with its assessment of China – that it represents an existential threat that must be confronted. Upon winning the election, and eager to demonstrate that he would not be the kind of weak leader that many feared, Biden vowed to continue the tough stance on China.

Now, with the Commerce Department’s release of the final trade data for 2020 last week, comes Biden’s first and biggest chance to prove what he meant. True to form, China completely ignored the requirements of the Phase 1 trade deal. Not only did it not meet the 2020 goal, it barely exceeded the 2017 baseline that was the basis for those goals. Here’s the Phase 1 trade deal data.

China missed its goal for total goods imports by $62 billion. In fact, it barely beat the 2017 baseline, rising by only $1.9 billion from 2017. In the all-important category of manufactured goods where the most jobs are created, China not ony fell short of the goal for 2020 by $37.5 billion, it actually fell short of the 2017 baseline by $4.7 billion. In terms of energy products, it barely beat the 2017 baseline while falling short of the 2020 goal by $17.7 billion. It also fell short of the goal for agricultural imports, the category key to support by America’s farmers, by $9.9 billion. This failure cost Trump critical support in the heartland and his failure to enforce this deal cost him support all across the country.

The results are in and they’re horrible. Predictably, China has once again reneged on this critical trade benchmark. So what’ll it be, president Biden? This is your big chance to prove that you meant what you said about being tough with China. Declare China in breach of the deal and extend the tariffs across the board on all Chinese imports. Failure to act – and giving China yet another chance would constitute such a failure – will prove that your rhetoric was just bluster and that you are the kind of weak leader that many feared.


Is the United States the stupidest nation on earth?

January 9, 2021

In light of the trade data released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, it’s difficult to draw any other conclusion. In November the trade deficit worsened to a new record of $64.5 billion. Actually, the situation is much worse than that. Strip away the surplus in services, which are little more than paperwork transactions, and you’re left with trade in manufactured goods, where real jobs are won and lost. Look at this chart. I would say that it couldn’t get any worse if it weren’t for the fact that with each passing month, it does. The deficit in manufactured goods hovered at the record level of $82.5 billion set only two months ago. That’s an annualized deficit of one trillion dollars.

Think about this. We’re paying the rest of the world a trillion dollars per year, putting their citizens to work making all the things we could just as easily make ourselves while, at the same time, we have tens of millions of people out of work. In fact, we’re paying trillions of dollars per year to pay our own people not to work. And we keep doing everything we can – as fast as we can – to make the situation worse. Ten years ago, in the wake of our most recent economic disaster, part of the auto industry bail-out was to allow Fiat to scoop up the Chrysler corporation, giving yet another foreign brand (the worst on earth, in terms of quality) an entry into the U.S. market, making the challenge for American cars that much worse. Building on that mistake, last month, FCA (Fiat-Chrysler of America) joined forces with PSA (the French automaker Peugot) forming a new company called “Stellantis,” giving Peugot access to the American market and, in all likelihood, finally killing the Chrysler brand.

Now we’ve elected as president a man who has spent his entire adult life championing policies that have exacerbated this decades-long downward spiral of our trade picture and, consequently, our entire economy. What little progress has been made under Trump he has vowed to rapidly undo.

If this situation doesn’t make the United States the stupidest nation on earth, I don’t know what would. And we wonder why this nation has become so divided and how there could be those among us so angry and frustrated that they’d be willing to riot and attack the capitol building. Trump was accused of lying to the American people about the election being stolen. I’ve consistently voted for candidates over these many years who have promised to do something about our trade deficit, and every one of them lied to us. Trump is accused of having blood on his hands for his role in fomenting the capitol building riot. For his part, Biden should accept blame for his role in formulating policies over the decades that have stoked the anger we saw unleashed on Thursday.

I remain angry and deeply disappointed with Trump for allowing his style and ego to get in the way of the bigger mission of Making America Great Again. The American people can forgive gaffes and rookie mistakes (being a rookie to the political scene), but they just couldn’t take any more of the daily barrage of personal insults that had nothing to do with the mission he was elected to do. It’s just sad to see it end this way.

It’s hard to see any hope of things improving for the United States. It angers me and makes me sick to say that. Since writing Five Short Blasts years ago, I’ve tried to keep this forum apolitical and focus instead on trying to explain the unseen economic consequences of population growth, including the danger of trying to engage in free trade with badly overpopulated nations. Maybe that’s been a mistake. So I’ll now say this: for decades Americans have been getting economically slaughtered like a flock of chickens. It’s hard to see any hope of things improving when you elect the fox to run the henhouse.


Thoughts on Capitol Building Riots & Trump’s Presidency

January 7, 2021

I’m still trying to process my thoughts, which are still evolving, on the events of yesterday. But I’d be remiss to let too much time pass. I’m angry, saddened, disappointed, disillusioned and feeling just a little sense of hopelessness.

The media is laying the blame for the riot at the capitol building directly on Trump, on his refusal to accept his election defeat, his insistence that the election was rigged and should be over-turned, and his urging of the protesters to march on the capitol building. They’re right on all counts. Trump does have blood on his hands. They also point their fingers at Republicans in the house and senate for standing by these claims to the end.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. First of all, I blame Trump for losing the election. Had he followed through with his promise to “Make America Great Again,” the election wouldn’t have even been close. He did an excellent job of clamping down on our open borders, preserving jobs for American workers. He failed badly, however, in reducing our trade deficit and bringing manufacturing jobs back. In fact, the trade deficit exploded under his watch. Had he restored a balance of trade, the economy would have soared at a minimum of twice the rate of 3% growth he achieved – an improvement over the 2% growth rate (or less) under the Obama administration – but pitifully short of making America great again. Had he followed through on trade, he’d have won in a landslide and it might have been Biden complaining about a rigged election. Nothing frustrated me more about Trump than his failing on trade.

A rigged election? I don’t know, but it’s an easy claim to believe. From the moment the 2016 election was decided, Democrats and the media attacked Trump mercilously and relentlessly. Two years were wasted on the bogus Russia investigation, and then another year on the impeachment over the Ukrainian phone call and his request that they look into why the investigation of Hunter Biden’s role with the Ukrainian gas company was suddenly halted. (Many Americans would still like to know the answer to that one.) By this time it was clear that the Democrats and the media would stop at absolutely nothing to bring him down. A rigged election? Whether they actually rigged it or not, it’s not a stretch to believe that the Democrats would stoop that low.

If it wasn’t rigged (and I’m not saying it was for certain), it sure smelled rotten. I’ve lived through a lot of elections and have never seen one like it. It wasn’t unusual in past elections for vote counting to drag on into Wednesday in a really close election. However, in this election, vote counting dragged on for a week or even ten days. After a few days of everyone left wondering how it could possibly take days to count the last 5% of votes when the first 95% were counted in one night, the truth started to leak out. They weren’t “counting” votes, but tallying new ones that continued to trickle in days after the polls had closed. Worse yet, we learned that the delay was also due to a process of “ballot curing,” in which previously rejected ballots were fixed, supposedly by giving the voters a chance to correct problems with their signatures or other problems. You have to be pretty naive to believe that the activists who facilitated that process (who are almost universally Democrats) were fair enough to give Republican voters a chance to fix their ballots too. The end result was that those late-arriving ballots were almost unanimously for Biden/Harris, flipping the count in their favor. Counting and recounting those same ballots doesn’t answer the questions about whether they were cast legally in the first place.

Honestly, I wasn’t surprised at what happened yesterday. It wasn’t four years in the making. It’s been decades in the making as the standard of living of most Americans has steadily declined, especially among the middle class. Look at the people who made up the rioters. They were mostly young people. A few in their 40s. Maybe a few even older. Where did these people come from and how did they become so angry and frustrated?

I’ll tell you where they came from. These are the kids who sat across the table from their parents thirty years ago and looked on as their fathers and mothers wept and swore about the loss of their jobs to factory closures. They watched their families being torn apart by the financial strain. They experienced the same thing when they entered the work force, finding only low pay and few benefits. The globalists who engineered the destruction of our manufacturing sector saw nothing but dollar signs with no consequences. Now, however, those chickens have come home to roost.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for what took place yesterday. It wasn’t just Trump who has blood on his hands. The Democrats and media who scuttled him from the very beginning share some blame too. So too do decades of globalist corporate leaders and their bought-and-paid for politicians, both Democrat and Republican – what I call the “Republicrat” party.

I’m angry at Trump. Though the election was lost, the smart move would have been to use his considerable influence to continue to build support for the “MAGA” movement and fight another day, four years from now, either as candidate or supporting some other candidate willing to take on the mantle. Instead, he foolishly squandered it all in an effort to do only he knows what. Force Democrats to admit they cheated? Start a revolution? Who knows, but it was a truly dumb move. He’s tarnished his brand forever. He’ll never again have a role in influencing the direction of the country. He totally blew it.

In the wake of the riot, as senators reconvened in the capitol building and one-by-one rose to speak, nearly all denounced Trump and were ready to rejoin the globalist Republicrat party. Back to business as usual, selling out America to global interests.

That would be a mistake. As I said, this was a long time coming. It’s not likely to end here. What you saw yesterday was a disorganized mob that is no less fervent in their beliefs today than they were yesterday. What happens from here? Surely they can see that rioting will get them nowhere. What’s the difference between a mob and a political party? Leadership, organization, a strategy, fund-raising and suits – and little else. Someone amongst MAGA supporters needs to step up and take a leadership role. Maybe it’s some congressman or senator, or maybe just some supporter with real political savvy. Get organized. Lay out an America-first platform. Raise money. This could be the makings of a new political party that could quickly challenge the Repubicrats. This is what I pray happens.

It could go another way if politicians blow this off as a one-off, Trump-incited incident. All it takes is leadership, organization, a strategy, and fund-raising – pretty much the same as I outlined above – but substitute fatigues and camos for suits, and now you’ve got a revolution. Let’s all pray it never comes to that. The best way to avoid it is to take seriously those who have been so disenfranchised by globalism.

I’m not optimistic, though. America’s about to take a sharp left turn and return to its role as the world’s lap dog and sugar daddy.