The Tariff Backlash Has Begun

Written By Leeja Miller

Sources:

Transcript:

Last week, markets plunged as Trump’s tariffpalooza reached new heights, roiling markets, baffling even the most astute economic experts, and plunging the entire global economy into uncertainty. Today we’re talking about the absolutely batshit economic theory behind the tariffs, the architect of said theory, the negative responses even from the right, and how the fuck we’re supposed to survive the next few years. Let’s get into it.

AD

The news these days has had literal wall to wall nonstop coverage of the fallout from Trump’s tariff announcement last week. And while Trump’s facing backlash from both sides of the aisle, you can still see bias in the way the media is reporting on the issue.

For example Ground News is covering this latest update that Trump just announced today: Trump threatens new 50% tariffs on China if Beijing doesn’t remove retaliatory duties. In the 183 articles Ground News gathered covering this topic, The left emphasizes the ongoing market crash while the right focuses on Trump’s negotiating tactics and China’s unfair retaliatory tariffs.

For example, left leaning Business Insider uses the headline “Trump threatens to hit China with extra tariffs of 50%, ratcheting up trade war” while far right American Wire News uses the headline “Trump to crank tariffs up to 50% for ‘biggest abuser’ China as they call him a big bully” painting China as petulant and misrepresenting the size of the tariffs–they’re not being cranked up to 50%, he’s threatening an ADDITIONAL 50% on top of the existing tariffs. Those details matter. These two headlines show very different takes, and if you’re only reading content that skews left or right, you may not know how the other side is interpreting the situation.

This is where Ground News comes in - and why I've been using them for over a year. Today’s partner Ground News is an app and website that offers tools to help you critically analyze the news you read, providing context to understand the full picture.

By using the Ground News Vantage Subscription, I can also see the blindspot feed where I can see stories disproportionately covered by one side of the political spectrum. For example, this latest headline, “Idaho Becomes First State to Authorize Firing Squads as Execution Method for Convicted Pedophiles” has received zero coverage on the left, so you might have missed it if you only read left-leaning publications. I feel better equipped to make sense of what’s happening in the world without being influenced by just one perspective.

I’m always really impressed with Ground News and genuinely think they’re a great resource. If you want to stay informed on US Politics and more scan my QR code, or click the link in the description or go to ground dot news slash leeja to get 40% off the same Vantage plan I use which comes to about $5/month. Ground News is subscriber-funded, so they don't rely on ads that could introduce bias! Subscribing supports my channel and an independent team working to keep the media transparent. Thanks Ground News!

On Wednesday last week, April 2nd, Donald Trump announced new sweeping tariffs on countries around the world. He dubbed it “Liberation Day”, another example of how much better at slant and marketing Republicans are than Democrats, cuz what a load of baloney. In the official White House “Fact Sheet” published in tandem with his announcement, the reasoning for the tariffs was clearly laid out: “President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency.” And so, because this is an emergency, Trump is “invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.” He will impose a 10% tariff on all countries, which took effect on April 5th, though certain individual countries will receive an “individualized reciprocal higher tariff” for those with which we have the largest trade deficits.

During his press conference announcing the tariffs, he had a handy chart which I’ll put on screen for those watching. It laid out which countries are getting individualized treatment, including the percentage of tariffs that other countries charge us, and next to it what the US will begin charging them, starting this Wednesday, April 9th. The numbers are misleading to say the least.

For example, China is at the top of the list, with the graph indicating China charges the US 67% tariffs, and the new US tariff on China will be 34%. Makes it sound pretty reasonable, right? Like omg if China is adding 67% tariffs on all US goods then 34% from the US is less than HALF what China is charging us, frankly it could be higher! It’s not fair!! The problem is that China literally does not charge 67% tariffs on US goods. The fine print under the heading on the chart “Tariffs Charged to the USA” in case you can’t read it, says “Including currency manipulation and trade barriers.” What does that mean? Well we have pretty clearly defined categories of trade barriers. The US Trade Representative in the Executive Office of the President issues a yearly report called the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, laying out exactly what trade barriers exist in each country. They fall into 14 categories that include things like import policies such as tariffs as well as technical barriers like restrictive and excessive regulations, government procurement like “buy national” policies, inadequate intellectual property protections, overly regulated digital markets, market subsidies, anti-competitive practices, labor protection violations, or harmful environmental practices. These are things that all countries have to a certain extent, including the US, and knowing what barriers to trade exist in each country is a helpful tool for understanding trade with those countries, because it turns out each country is different and requires individualized economic policies. At least in theory. However, the problem is that what’s written on Trump’s pretty little graph is a lie. That percentage is not based, as the graph says, on Tariffs including currency manipulation and trade barriers. That percentage is based largely on a fancy looking formula that emphasizes the size of the trade DEFICIT we have with each country. That’s to say the difference in how much we export to China versus how much we import from China, for example. So we import more than we export to that country, therefore there’s a trade deficit with that country.

And my GOD look at Vietnam!! Vietnam puts 90% tariffs on US goods, so our new 46% tariffs are only HALF of what Vietnam charges for US goods, my god they could go even higher!! Except for the fact that that’s not true. The 90% number includes our trade deficit with Vietnam. We import more from Vietnam than we export to Vietnam, that’s true. And when you pause for a second to rub your last remaining brain cells together you can understand why. Vietnam has a lot of factories and a large work force that works for pennies. And there’s all sorts of human rights and other discussions we could have about that but from a basic economic standpoint, Vietnam is able to undercut the global competition because it can produce things for dirt cheap, or grow things in its insanely tropical climate that cannot be grown anywhere in the US. So we want those things because they’re cheaper than the same things coming from elsewhere, or because we cannot make them ourselves. On the other hand, US manufactured items have to comply with US laws about minimum wages and other restrictions. So anything manufactured here is going to be more expensive. Who the fuck in Vietnam making 15 cents an hour is going to buy an American-made item? The demand for expensive American-made goods in Vietnam is very low. So when the demand is higher in the US and lower in Vietnam, we are going to import a hell of a lot more than we export to Vietnam. Slapping a 46% tariff on goods imported from Vietnam is not going to make the factory owners there think wow it would be so much easier and cheaper for me to move my factory to the US! Instead, they’re going to mark up the price of their goods to cover the new tariff and we will pay more for those items here. Or they will look at that list and say hmm the Philippines are close and provide cheap labor, and they’re only being charged a 17% tariff, let’s start moving our manufacturing there.

ON TOP OF THAT–basing these new “retaliatory tariffs” on the import and export of goods, of items, dramatically misses the full picture. Because, according to the New York Times, the United States is the world’s largest exporter of SERVICES. Streaming, media, technology, banking, tourism, none of these services fall into the “trade deficit” calculation because they are not goods. So the US imports more goods from the EU than it exports, but it exports more services than it purchases. According to the New York Times, quote “If you counted services in the trade gap in Mr. Trump’s formula, the tariffs on the E.U. would shrink almost in half.” And on TOP OF THAT!! There are certain countries with which the US has a trade surplus, meaning we export more than we buy. According to Trump that’s good! And yet there are at least 100 countries and territories with which we have a trade surplus, and they were all included in the blanket 10% tariff. They now have 10% tariffs whether or not we are in a trade surplus with them.

When asked to explain how they got to these random tariff numbers, the US Office of Trade Representative put out a document trying to make the formula seem fancy by using Greek symbols but the problem is that there are people in the world that have studied math and know what the symbols mean and were able to look at the formula and call bullshit. Many have pointed out that a couple of the symbols mean literally nothing. The tariff rate is multiplied by two variables, one meant to approximate the “price elasticity of import demand” and one to approximate the “tariff pass-through to retail prices.” What does that mean?? I don’t know, I’m not an economist, but what I do know is the number approximating the “price elasticity of import demand” that they chose was “4.” Just the number four. And the number they chose to approximate the “tariff pass-through to retail prices” was .25. So they take those two numbers and multiply them by the tariff rate. The problem is that 4 times .25 equals 1. So they are multiplying the tariff rate by 1. And what do you get when you multiply a number by one?? The same number. It does nothing. It is made up math to sound smart and they’re betting, based on accurate historical data frankly, that their supporters won’t know the difference.

The formula that the White House used, then, boiled down, was our total trade deficit with the country in dollars divided by the value of the goods in dollars that we import from the country. So, using an example reported on by MSNBC, “We have a $66 billion trade deficit with South Korea, and we import $133 billion in goods from them. Sixty-six is 50.3 percent of 133, so South Korea’s “tariff rate” is listed as 50 percent.” And then to get our new tariff on the country they then divided that number in half, because Trump was being nice and just charging HALF what they charge us in these made up “tariffs.”

So the made up formula is weirdly applied in a blanket manner to almost all countries regardless of underlying factors and actual trade barriers that are important to consider when setting tariffs, but also there are exceptions put in place that complicate that. For some reason, Afghanistan’s tariff numbers were calculated using a different formula. China’s tariff numbers are cumulative, so they amount to a total of 54% tariffs on China. So these new additional 50% tariffs Trump is threatening against China just today would put tariffs on Chinese goods at 104%. Russia and North Korea are excluded because there are already sanctions in place. Mexico and Canada are excluded because we have different tariffs with them I guess? Steel and aluminum and cars are not included, neither are copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber articles, bullion, and “energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.” So it applies blanket tariffs where it doesn’t make sense and exceptions where it weirdly complicates things.

And get this even the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, like ground zero for kooky right wing economic think take theories, was like wait this math is bad. They literally published a blog post titled “President Trump’s Tariff Formula Makes No Economic Sense. It’s Also Based on an Error.” Because in addition to posting the “formula” they used, the US Office of the Trade Representative “cited their sources.” And people then checked those citations. In the American Enterprise Institute post, the authors write “even if one were to take the Trump Administration’s tariff formula seriously, it makes an error that inflates the tariffs assumed to be levied by foreign countries four-fold.” Remember one of those numbers, .25, which when multiplied by 4 cancels itself out in the formula and doesn’t make sense? That’s in part because it was the wrong number. The number should have been closer to 1. 1, when multiplied by 4, equals 4. So the top number should have been divided by 4. Not 1. Meaning the tariff rates are 4 times higher than they should be by the government’s own reasoning. So Vietnam’s rate of 46% should actually be 12.2%. As the American Enterprise Institute authors state, and I cannot believe I am quoting approvingly from that institution, “our view is that the formula the administration relied on has no foundation in either economic theory or trade law. But if we are going to pretend that it is a sound basis for US trade policy, we should at least be allowed to expect that the relevant White House officials do their calculations carefully.” Sick burn, and from a far right extremist think tank no less. Proving officially once and for all that there is one hard line that conservatives do actually have when it comes to Trump’s behavior: it’s the economy, stupid. Not to say he hasn’t messed with the economy before in detrimental ways, but this time he’s gone so far that even people with the cognitive dissonance necessary to overlook his past actions are able to stop and say hold the damn phone.

So not only are the numbers a lie and the math faulty, the basis for these tariffs is completely illogical, not least of which because these aren’t retaliatory tariffs because to be retaliatory necessitates the existence of tariffs to retaliate against, and these tariff numbers are entirely made up. Here are three more reasons why these tariffs make no sense:

Number one: multiple of Trump’s own cabinet members, not least of which his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have said that this is part of a long-term plan, and yet they are bragging that countries are coming to the negotiating table to work out a deal to lower or eliminate tariffs. So are these tariffs long term or are they just bargaining chips? That uncertainty is roiling the global markets. On the one hand, Trump is promising that these tariffs will bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, on the other hand they’re being touted as simply how Trump makes a deal to make countries pay more. But if the countries do come to the table like he says they are, and they do make a deal to pay us more in exchange for lower tariffs, for example, that means those markets will open back up and these tariffs will be short-lived. Getting companies to move manufacturing back to the US isn’t something that happens in a couple weeks or months. It takes multiple years and TONS of money to relocate a factory, from construction to legal compliance and everything in between. So is the goal to bring back manufacturing or is it to get countries to come to the bargaining table and give us more money?

Second major contradiction, which many have pointed out: these tariffs are not going to be paid by these countries. They are going to be paid by BUSINESSES, private entities, attempting to import items from those countries into the US. And as a result those businesses, because they are money making ventures, are going to charge us more in order to not cut into their bottom line. And of course the smaller the business the greater they will be hit by these tariffs because their margins and borrowing ability is much smaller than say a fortune 500 company. So that boutique that sells clothes made in Vietnam or the corner store that sells imported Chinese food products that you can’t find anywhere else. They are not going to turn to American-made goods to supply their inventory, they are going to raise prices to cover the tariffs and then they are going to go out of business when people don’t buy their stuff because it’s more affordable at big box stores or because these tariffs wiped out their retirement savings they were living off of and they can’t afford it anymore.

And the third area of faulty logic is the idea that these tariffs are mitigating against currency manipulation and other anti-free trade practices that other countries are committing. But tariffs are the antithesis to free trade. They are regulations put in place to try to control the “free market.” Increasingly high tariffs are a very strange tactic for a party that has for decades been staunchly free trade. It doesn’t make logical sense, on so many fronts, when these tariffs are analyzed from a typical Republican stance of free trade laissez faire economics and smaller government with fewer regulations. And I think that’s why we’re seeing push back even from the right, which we’ll get into. But it is worth quickly examining how we got to these tariffs in order to understand them. Because they cannot be understood through a traditional Republican lens. They have to be understood through the lens of the people behind the scenes pulling the strings to enact these tariffs, cuz you KNOW Trump did not come up with this shit by himself.

Enter: Peter Navarro, the chief architect behind Trump’s tariff plan. Here’s how the New York Times describes him: “a Rasputin-like China hawk who whispers anti-China musings in President Trump’s ear.” LOVE any opportunity to bring Rasputin into things, honestly. Navarro holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and honestly I’m starting to believe Harvard will give those out to anyone because good lord this guy is a kook. He’s written 13 books and is incredibly pro-tariff, anti-China and also generally written off by most economists as a fringe theorist at best. It was revealed over SIX YEARS AGO, though this information is once again making the media rounds, first published in an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, that a lot of his most asinine theories are based on the musings of a fictional “China expert” that Navarro made up and cited to at least a dozen times in his books. That made up person is named Ron Vara, a name which, in truly Voldemortian fashion, Navarro crafted by taking the letters of his last name and rearranging them. [insert clip at 2:47] Navarro when rearranged turns into Ron Vara. Again this man has a PhD from Harvard. They must be giving doctorates out like candy over in Cambridge Massachusetts my god. When asked to comment on the revelation, Navarro simply compared himself to ALFRED HITCHCOCK, saying that the Ron Vara character was like a Hitchcockian cameo, and saying it was “refreshing” that someone FINALLY figured out his little inside joke. In a text message to the New York Times he wrote “As Ron Vara might say, ‘Lighten up and have fun reading the books.’” Which is actually insane for an academic to say about his academic non-fiction writing like I need a psychologist to go into the White House and figure out just how many of Trump’s advisors have personality disorders because I imagine the number is not zero.

I listened to an interview with Peter Navarro recently, it was on the New York Times podcast The Daily, on February 18th, titled A Conversation With the Architect of Trump’s New Trade War and was struck when he said that Trump was once asked about his favorite books about China and he listed Navarro’s book, The Coming China Wars, by name. Like omg Trump knows the name of a book off the top of his head and maybe… read it?? Everything I’ve known about the man is turned on its head!! Turns out, probably not. In fact, that recent interview I listened to wasn’t the first time Navarro had spun his yarn that Trump had read The Coming China Wars. Back in 2016, in an interview with KPBS San Diego, he told the same story, that in 2011 an LA Times reporter was trying to corner Trump in a GOTCHA moment asking him what his favorite books on China are, but he showed that reporter when he listed off 15 books by name!! But that story has been debunked, and it’s unclear whether that interview with Trump ever happened at all, despite numerous reputable news sources mentioning it over the last nearly 15 years since it happened. There is no primary source evidence indicating that it ever did happen. The interviews that have actual evidence of ever happening in which Trump is asked about his reading habits show him either deflecting saying he’s too busy to read because he watches TV instead or saying that his first favorite book is the Bible and his second favorite is his own book The Art of the Deal. I guarantee you he’s never read either of them. In fact, according to recent reporting by MSNBC, Trump likely only knows Peter Navarro because his son in law Jared Kushner was looking for new economic advisors and did a search of books on Amazon and was impressed with the title of Peter Navarro’s book Death by China and cold called Peter Navarro to see if he would step in as economic advisor. Like scrolled through Amazon book recommendations and was like this’ll do. As always, it’s hard to exactly suss out the truth when relying on known compulsive liars, but the point is Peter Navarro comes from dubious origins and espouses made up looney tunes economic theories, backed up somehow by a PhD from Harvard which means you can say pretty much anything and people are like well he went to harvard so. Mustn’t question!

And it’s one thing when it’s a kooky professor publishing unfounded, mis-cited information in books nobody reads. It’s another thing when that man, as the New York Times put it, is “a Rasputin-like China hawk who whispers anti-China musings in President Trump’s ear.” And this Rasputin has even put a rift between Trump and his very favorite special sidekick Elon Musk, who said the following in a video meeting with Italy’s right leaning League party: “I hope it’s agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally, in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America.” He also took a swipe at Navarro on Twitter saying “A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing. Results in the ego divided by brains is greater than 1 problem.” Meaning your ego becomes bigger than your smarts. And in the greatest evidence yet that Navarro is more of a showman than an economist, he made a sick comeback, calling Elon a car salesman who’s “simply protecting his own interests.” Nice.

So we have a completely made up, incorrect, error ridden mathematical formula based on nothing determining reciprocal tariff rates that aren’t even reciprocal, likely orchestrated by a man who cites to made-up characters in his books who’s whispering in the ear of a megalomaniac authoritarian oligarch who couldn’t care less whether any of us lives or dies. Not quite the same but Trump literally said he “couldn’t care less” if auto prices increased as a result of these tariffs. And they are almost guaranteed to do so, hurting American manufacturers’ bottom lines in the process and likely leading to layoffs and closures.

Navarro’s stated reasoning for why he is so dead set on tariffs is that he believes it will raise money for the government which will then lead to lower taxes. So the government will levy higher tariffs, businesses will pay them to import their goods, the government will have more money so they’ll need to tax the people less. The problem that most economists who actually have a toe in reality point out is that increased tariffs have fucking consequences, like retaliatory tariffs, like increased prices on everyday goods, like hurting American businesses, and those consequences will slow the economy down. And they will be felt the most by middle and lower income Americans. Because a billionaire doesn’t know what an egg costs, let alone notice when egg prices change. A billionaire can buy whatever car they want without noticing the price tag. Multi-millionaires will still buy their Switch 2 and their new car and their imported washing machines and their shoes made in Italy and their organic produce from Mexico and they won’t notice a thing. Meanwhile lower income Americans will not only feel the squeeze at the grocery store and any time they need a new pair of shoes, they’ll also have a harder time even finding those things to begin with, because there will be less of them in the market due to the slowing economy, and those that do exist will have higher prices. And then on that magical fairy tale day that Navarro promises when the tax cuts magically rain down upon us, they will mostly benefit the richest Americans, who already don’t pay their fair share, and the rest of us, if there ever is a tax cut which is definitely not a given outcome of increased tariffs, might see a modest drop in the taxes we pay, but that would be after literal years of being pummelled with supply chain issues and overpriced goods due to tariffs. The only people who benefit from this “no pain no gain” approach that Trump is advocating for, are the rich, who feel the price increases less and who get the most out of tax cuts. And even THEY are feeling the squeeze now.

Last week the Dow Jones industrial average fell by over 1500 points two days in a row. That’s the first time that has ever happened. The market overall has seen the greatest dip it’s seen since March 2020 when the pandemic hit. The S&P 500 is nearing bear market territory meaning it’s lost almost 20% since its peak. Last week alone the S&P 500 fell by nearly 6% in one day. 6% is when the circuit breaker kicks in and pauses all trading for 15 minutes to protect against a complete market freefall. Earlier today, amid unsubstantiated rumors that Trump was going to pause the tariffs, the markets jumped back up, only to crash back down when the administration said on Twitter that it was all fake news. The extreme volatility is sending investors into an even greater tailspin, sowing doubt in the stability and strength of the economy. Worldwide, markets everywhere have been in freefall, from Europe to Japan. Germany’s index fell into near bear market territory, Hong Kong’s fell more than 13%, Shanghai’s by over 8%, and Japan’s by nearly 8%. The volatility index which measures market volatility, so higher is worse, is the highest it’s been since the pandemic. One analyst described it to the BBC as a “bloodbath.” Goldman Sachs raised its forecast from 35% to a 45% chance the US will fall into a recession in the next 12 months. JPMorgan estimates a 60% chance of a US and global recession.

The world’s richest billionaires lost $200 billion dollars in a single day last week. Mark Zuckerberg alone lost 18 billion dollars in one day. This has led to rare backlash by billionaires aimed at the Trump administration. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman took to twitter to lambast the president, saying “the president is losing the confidence of business leaders around the globe” and adding “we are heading for a self-induced, economic nuclear winter, and we should start hunkering down” which says a lot because billionaires literally have bunkers in which to hunker. CEO of JP Morgan Jamie Dimon said in an annual letter to shareholders “Whether or not the menu of tariffs causes a recession remains in question, but it will slow down growth.”

Ackman added in his post “this is not what we voted for.” This echoes the overarching Republican response to these tariffs as well, from rank and file voters to members of Congress.

One user on Conservative subreddit named HairyEyeballz put it well when he said “I get the sense I'm not being told the truth…” or user ComprehensiveTown919 on Republican subreddit saying “I need someone to help me understand what exactly these tariffs are going to help us on, because right now, all I'm seeing is the prices for simple every day living items continuing to go up. This is not what I voted for, and I want to know why this is happening.” With user Kualityy responding “This was Trump's main economic policy proposal during the 2024 election campaign…” and another user responding “This IS what you voted for.” This is the REPUBLICAN SUBREDDIT. Its profile picture is of Donald Trump’s face. Tiktok user Mostface2 who is not conservative but has been following conservative subreddit since 2014 noted this is a huge shift. [Insert clip]

Even Republicans in Congress are showing rifts in their typically lock step support of Trump’s agenda. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told reporters, quote “"When [President William McKinley], most famously, put tariffs on in 1890, they lost 50% of their seats in the next election. When Smoot and Hawley put on their tariff in the early 1930s, we lost the House and the Senate for 60 years. So they’re not only bad economically, they’re bad politically.”

Perhaps most notably, a new bill is gaining rare bipartisan support from the likes of Mitch McConnell and Amy Klobuchar. The bill would limit the President’s power to impose new tariffs and instead the President would have to obtain Congressional approval. Congress would also retain the power to end any tariff at any time. And this isn’t a revolutionary idea, the constitution literally gives the power to tax and tariff to the Congress, but over the centuries Congress has slowly passed laws offloading that duty onto the president. However, many Republicans are not jumping on board with the new bill, instead deciding to tentatively support Trump, with Senate Majority leader John Thune saying he’s giving Trump “the benefit of the doubt.” As Democratic Senator Brian Schatz put it, “Mostly everyone hates this, they are just too afraid of the Mad King at the moment.” That about sums it up.

And while we can look at reactions on the right and the left, the volatility of the market, and the economic forecasts to try to see what’s going to happen, the reality is that nobody really knows. No one’s done something like this before. Not to this extent, with this little support, with this little backing in reality or you know how economics works, with this little care for the consequences or the fall out. Europe is talking about enacting more retaliatory tariffs. China has already passed some. Rumors that the tariffs will be postponed on Wednesday have already come and gone and will probably come again, he may pause them on Wednesday, he’s done it before. The result, whether the tariffs stick or not, is increased global economic uncertainty in the face of all this volatility. The result is further alienating countries that were once our allies, relationships that will take decades to fix, long after Trump is gloriously cold and dead in the ground. Our 401ks have already lost value and will likely lose some more, though it’s unclear how long that will last. Is it a shorter blip like the market response to the pandemic in 2020 or is it a protracted recession, the globalization bubble bursting, closer to 2008, which some people are still recovering from. Yes, still. There are genuine real consequences happening right now, and there are disparate and sometimes unforeseeable consequences that will come likely for all of us in different ways. Time will tell how deep this downturn goes, but it is true that all of us, regardless of political ideology, are going to be uncomfortable, either from literal economic squeeze or just general economic uncertainty, for a while.

Okay here’s the part of the episode where I tell you what to do about it. I’m not an economic advisor, but I do have a type A sister who taught me about personal finance from a young age and I have also been doing a lot of thinking for the last week that I’ve been off, and here’s what I’m doing and thinking about.

Recessions have happened. World wars have happened. Pandemics have happened. Multiple times. Through it all, despite incredible volatility and economic hardship which I do not mean to minimize but this is the truth, through it all the economy has continued intact. Meaning the stock market still exists, it bounces back, the downturns have been temporary. This is not a time to panic and pull all your money from the stock market if you have any in there. If you have the ability to make extra cash, a side hustle, a passion project, and you can squirrel away a few extra dollars, now’s the time to do it. I realize that’s not possible for everyone, I’m just saying if that’s within your capability, now would be the time to do it. Make sure you have savings to cover your bills for at least six to nine months. Again, I know that’s not a reality for so many people, so many people cannot weather a $500 emergency right now, let alone save up six months of expenses. If you do have that emergency savings in place, and maybe you top up that savings so it’s closer to nine months, and then you squirrel away what you can in the stock market as well. And I know there is no way to ethically invest in the stock market because there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, etc. I personally do it because you gotta play the game to survive and I’m not interested in being destitute in my old age if I can help it. That’s the reality we live in. And the reality IS that the more stocks you can buy during a downturn, the greater returns you’ll get on your investments. Look up information on stock investing for beginners if you’re interested and don’t know where to start, there are much smarter people than me with very comprehensive guides for getting started. Do not take your money out in cash and hide it under your mattress. In an event where the market actually no longer exists your cash will be as useless as your accounts, you’ll be in survival mode, and you’re much better off having things that would actually be worth bartering, like skills or goods like gold or batteries or something, I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole because I find the prepper content tends to just be more anxiety-inducing than helpful, the point is don’t panic. Counterintuitively now is the time to not touch your money, leave it where it is, don’t be reactionary. That includes reactionary spending as well. Don’t go out and buy a car because the price is going to go up. Don’t go out and buy 20 costco-sized packs of toilet paper because the prices may go up, or some of those Costco slop buckets with freeze dried food to survive an apocalypse, have you seen those? Okay CALM THE FUCK DOWN we are not at Costco apocalypse slop bucket levels of panic here, OKAY?? GET A GRIP.

That being said, in light of this volatility I have also been thinking a lot more about self sufficiency. I’ve been learning how to garden, there are so many amazing resources on YouTube for basic cheap gardening skills. Even in a small space it is amazing how much of your own produce you can grow, especially things like leafy greens and herbs which are insanely easy to grow and can be so expensive. I grew kale in a bucket in my fire escape during law school just to feel something. Now’s the perfect time of year to start a tomato plant. If you have some old potatoes with weird sprouts coming out of them, cover them with dirt and they’ll multiply. But in addition to turning inward to self preservation and self sufficiency and learning new skills, I urge you, and this is coming from me, your resident introvert, to also look outward for community support. I don’t even necessarily mean mutual aid, though that is also a huge part of this–seeking and providing monetary support, bartering, services, etc., within your community. But I also mean turning outward to your friends and family for support in living everyday life. You don’t have to go it alone. Maybe every Tuesday you go to a friend’s house to work remotely together. Maybe your friend has a yard she isn’t using and would be thrilled to let you plant a garden there. Maybe you have a friend who loves baking bread who starts baking loaves for your friend group. Maybe you are an amazing sewer and can mend and hem your own clothes to make them last longer and offer that for your friends and family as well. It doesn’t have to be this big political organizing effort, it can literally be offering your resources or skills to your existing networks of friends and family, who will certainly feel inspired to offer theirs back to you. This is a shitty situation that offers at the very least an opportunity to start to unlearn some of the very American habits and proclivities I certainly participate in, the rugged individualism, the workaholic schedule, the complete disconnection from food systems and nature, the lack of third spaces and socializing outside of work. Time and again, every time I spiral about the world, which I have been doing on a near daily basis for the last few months, I always arrive back at the same spot: that my skills, my self sufficiency, and my community are the things that can help me weather any storm. I think that’s true for all of us. Keep showing up to protests, I believe there’s another one scheduled for April 19th, keep calling your representatives, especially about this bill that would take back congressional tariff power, probably boycott American-made goods if you live outside the US, I know I would. But also keep the faith that we’ll get through this together, which is easier said than done and I’m not telling you to remain positive or not fucking freak out or rage because I’ve been doing just that for months, but also, like, despite all odds I still believe in us. And hey, as we learned from Rand Paul, last time Republicans passed tariffs this massive the Democrats took over for the next 60 years, so here’s hoping.

And if you’d like to support my work, I recommend joining me over on Patreon where I launched the Why, America? Co-Learning Lab at the beginning of this year, a learning community having discussions and making connections, along with a monthly syllabus curated by me. All year we’ll be covering topics under the umbrella theme of “Eat the Rich: Building Solidarity in the New Gilded Age.” April’s topic is all about uncovering how fascism festered in America. This is all hosted over on Patreon, which is linked down below. If you’re interested, please join us. Patreon dot com slash leeja miller.

Thank you to my multi-platinum patrons Marc, Thomas Orf, Sarah Shelby, Art, David, R_H, L’etranger (Lukus), Joshua Cole, Thomas Johnson, and Tay. Your generosity makes this channel what it is, so thank you!

And if you liked this episode, you’ll like my last one about Trump’s attack against lawyers.

Leeja Miller
Previous

Is It Time To Leave The US?
Next

Trump Declares War On Lawyers