July 15, 2025 • 38 mins
President Trump is once again threatening tariffs against friendly countries and foes alike! While many are concerned about the President’s latest round of tariff rates that have reached their highest level since 1910, inflation has remained fairly stable this year. While inflation is up, it’s not as high as many economists expected when Trump first started rolling out tariffs. Gregory Stoller, professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business joined us to discuss Trump’s tariffs and the current state of the U.S. economy.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZY, Boston's new radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Y very much. Dan Walkins, welcome back everyone, and we
want to thank doctor Jesse Hefter the Brookline School Committee
for the time that he spent in. That was kind
of an amazing story from Patty in Wellesley and also
a different perspective from Harvey Silverglate. That's what we do
here on Nightside, we try to get people different points
of view. And also the first callist that with Lisa
(00:26):
from Brookline, a very interesting information that I was unaware of.
I learned something on Nightside every night. And one of
my guests who has been particularly effective in the subject
area of his interest is our next guest. He teaches
at Boston University's Questrium School of Business, doctor Gregory Staller,
(00:48):
who was actually led students business students since nineteen ninety
four on fifty trips to China and in Asia other
countries as well. Professor Staller, welcome back to Night's Side.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Thank you, Dan, appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
So what are some of the countries that you have
taken students to. I know it's more than just China.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Yeah, So we just got back in March of the
last academic year to Hong Kong and ho Chi Minh
City with twenty four students. We visited nine companies during
that full semester course. The year before we were in
Tokyo and Osaka and Japan, and the year before that
we were in Singapore. I think all sold I've probably
(01:35):
been to maybe twelve different countries in the Pacific ram
with our students over the years.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And we're here to talk about tariffs, and particularly the
tariffs that Donald Trump has imposed beginning on what he
called Liberation Day on April second. And I know that
you philosophically are not a big fan of techariffs, although
(02:02):
obviously they exist worldwide. Tell us why so I.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
And by the way, thank you for the opportunity to return.
I always try and take a nonpartisan approach to all
of this, but I will tell you that strictly from
a personal standpoint, I believe in free trade. That has
nothing to do with being a Democrat or Republican. I
just think that there are certain companies that special countries
that specialize in X, other countries specialize in Why Why
(02:30):
should you try and reinvent the wheel by producing Y
If you're good at producing X, and that's where free
trade comes in, is that you trade X for Y
and Y for X, and all the world you know
doesn't know any differently.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
So so if it's almost like I mean, there are
are there any countries in the world who have no
tariffs whatsoever?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I mean, I'm sure if you take you know, the
Kingdom of Monaco and one of their training partners, there
might not be any tariffs. But I think the tariffs
are like sales tax. Tariffs are like any other regulatory
approach that you have to pay in order to do business.
(03:17):
I mean, does that mean you're not going to use
the mass Pike in Massachusetts because you need to pay
a toll. It's the cost of doing business, okay.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
And President Trump believes that the US has been disadvantaged
because the tariffs that we pay for our products going
in other countries around the world greater than we actually
(03:47):
charge for countries to sell goods in this country. I'm
just trying to get a.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Clear you're absolutely correct. And again I'm all about statistics.
And you know, whether you are publican or Trump, Republican
or not. US customs duties topped one hundred billion for
the first time in a fiscal year that was reported
by Reuters a couple of days ago. So like it
or hate it, the fact of the matter is that
(04:14):
tariffs are on one part of the ledger supporting the
US economy.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Okay, so that's one hundred billion dollars. That's a lot
of money. But at the same time, in the context
of our economy, I think our economy now is about
twenty eight trillion dollars a year, if I'm not mistaken,
we also have a federal death of thirty six thirty
(04:44):
seven trillion dollars a year. I mean one hundred billion dollars,
a big amount of money, And obviously if those tariffs
were to continue, maybe you'd get to two hundred or
two hundred and fifty billion a year, but that's a
small percentage of that.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Absolutely correct. And in terms of a real GDP number,
you were correct about the thirty one trillion. On real GDP,
it's it's just under twenty four trillion. You're absolutely right.
Even if you subtract our death from that, you know,
one hundred billion dollars is certainly not chump change, but
it's not going to move the needle appreciably.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Right, So so so and again, what I'm trying to understand,
what do you think Trump, President Trump is trying to
accomplish here, what th tariffs on friend and foe alike.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
I think what he is trying to accomplish is that
he believes that the United States is being taken advantage of.
And again, you know me, Dan, your listeners hopefully know me.
I'm not going to talk politics. That's not how I've
been trained. But from a business standpoint, he remains convinced
that the United States, this is his uh, this is
(05:59):
his raise, is getting screwed. So as a result, he's
trying to do two things. He's trying to equalize fairness
in terms of charging a tax in doing business with
the United States, and he's trying to better replenish the
US treasury by using those taxes to in theory, support
(06:21):
US jobs, to support US manufacturing EXE. That's the premise
that he is trying to accomplish. And again, depending on
whether you love it or you hate it, on one
side of the ledger, he has produced one hundred billion
in US customers duties. However, the US dollar in the
first half of twenty twenty five is down approximately thirteen percent.
(06:44):
The dollar is down thirteen percent versus the euro six
percent versus the Japanese end, and inflation is high. So
again it's really sort of what side of this do
you want to take a position on.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Okay, to establish the relationship between the tariffs and inflation,
you characterize inflation as being high. Obviously, there were inflation
numbers released today which showed them nowhere near where they
were three or four years ago when we were really
dealing with inflation. I think the core number today was
(07:24):
somewhere around was it one point seven percent or you know,
there are all sorts of numbers here, but in the
context of where we have been, it's up a little
bit today. But a lot of the people, the economists
who are who were critical of Trump almost retro you know,
just I mean reactively. We're telling us that what was
(07:49):
what went on on April second was was the sky
would fall, and it hasn't quite fallen yet.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
So again that's the interesting part of this debate. And
you're absolutely right by the way cornflation picked up zero
point two percent in the month, with the annual amount
going to just under three percent. Again, depends on what
side of the fence you want to sit on. Year
to date, S and P's up six point six percent,
(08:19):
NASDAK up almost seven percent, Dow Jones industrials up four
and a half percent.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
So is.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Are tariffs killing the economy? Certainly not.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Tonight? No, right, And that's as.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And I think that President Trump absolutely wants to tie
the tariffs to lowering interest rates through the FED. We
all know he's not a fan of Chairman Powell. And
you know right now, I think the downside of today's
announcement about inflation is it still a little bit higher
(08:57):
than the Fed wants to admit. As a result. I
don't care who the chairman is going to be. I
don't see them naturally having an argument outside of politics
that they should lower the interest rates.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Okay, on that point, we'll take a break, and there's
a lot to absorb here, lot cover, But what I
want to do with Professor Staller is to look at
it from as many different perspectives as we want. Now.
I know some of you out there know a lot
about this. Some of you don't know as much about it,
(09:33):
maybe as you'd like to, So stay with us, we'll
all learn a little bit. At the same time, I
truly want to have your point of view and ask questions.
I'm asking questions as well, so feel free. The only
dumb questions are the questions you don't have the guts
to ask. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
(09:55):
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. Whether
you like Donald Trump or not, he is the president.
He is able to make policies which affect all of us,
and let's try to understand what the implications of those
policies have been up until today and where they might
go from here. We'll come back on Nightside talking about tariffs,
(10:20):
which again very important, perhaps not what you call a
sexy cultural issue type, but it's a very important topic.
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
It's Nightside with Ray Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
We are delighted to be joined by Professor Gregory Staller
of Boston University, the Questrum School of Business. He has
spent a lot of time in some of the countries
that we've heard a lot about about tariffs in the
last well forty years, first teaching at Boston College and
(10:58):
now at Boston Universe. Let me for a moment play
the game with you and put you on the side
of the table of President Trump, of course, what is
the best argument that you can make in favor of
what he is doing? What do you think his goal
(11:18):
is here? Obviously I would hope his goal is not
to destroy the economy because but from his perspective, if
things were to work out, what should we where should
we be a year from now or two?
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yeah? Great question. I think from his perspective, he has
repeatedly said, trust me, I know what I'm doing. Give
me time and again, I'm taking the midterm elections out
of this. I'm taking the facts he's in a second
term out of this. He's saying, there's no reason why
we shouldn't provide more support for the US economy through attacks,
(11:57):
which is essentially what tariffs are. And he's also saying,
while we're at it, tariffs will encourage US manufacturing, tariffs
will encourage US jobs. And so it's pretty much a
trifecta of wins. Right, You're putting more money into the
US treasury, you're supporting US manufacturers, and you're supporting US
(12:20):
jobs at the same time. And by the way, again
this is from President Trump's perspective. The Dow Jones and
the other stock market indices have done. Just fine, Comma,
thank you very much. Unemployment is at four point five percent,
pretty good, you know, a gradual increase from historic lows.
You know, we go back to twenty two and twenty
three three point five to three point seven, that was
(12:43):
the lowest in fifty years. We're doing just fine. Federal
funds rate four point twenty five percent. Why can't we
lower that? That is his approach.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
So how long will it be? Obviously you can say, well,
you've collected than one hundred billion in daris, so that's
that's some money in the bank. We've put it in perspective.
It's not the king's ransom in the context of the
federal budget or the GDP. But when can we look,
let us say, at some of the other things that
(13:15):
he hopes will occur, and that is bringing businesses back
to this country out of places like Mexico or whatever.
Because I think that's part of his his game plan
is to get some of the automobile manufacturers back out
of Mexico. That's going to take a couple of three
years at least.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Right, absolutely, But I think Trump's approach has always been
go big or go home, And his feeling is if
it's worth right. We're in the first half of the year, right,
So if we've generated one hundred billion for the fiscal
year through the end of June six months, why not
make it two hundred and fifty billion.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It would be tough time.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
If it's If it's going well, why not you know, again,
leaning harder to what's happening on August first, he's proposed
new thirty percent tariffs on the EU, Mexico and Canada,
fifty percent tariff on copper and specific Brazilian goods. If
it's going well, why not just add fuel to the
fire and keep on going.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Okay, I'll make the argument why you shouldn't, and that is,
as you raise as we raised tariffs against let us
say Brazil. Well, maybe Brazil is not a good example
because he's raising the tariffs down there to get the
guy over the president his trial taken away. But let's
say we raise tariffs in another country, they're going to
raise tariffs on us. And isn't that then, as the
(14:39):
argument goes, going to increase prices back home in America.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So let me let me take the con and reverse
everything that I was saying right, he's killing US exports
right in the sense that the dollars no longer as strong.
US exports are going down. Why would you poke the
bear in terms of the tariff impact on our relationship
(15:06):
with our allied countries? Right? If you know, if you
have good relationships with the UK, if you have good
relationships with Canada, and that's why would you poke that bear?
There are certainly enough countries out there that you can
have a disagreement with. Why would you go after our allies,
especially after the EU? And you know, the con to
this is it's not working so well in the sense
(15:28):
that it's wonderful that he wants to cut US State
Department jobs. It's wonderful he wants to cut jobs from
the US Department of Education. But eventually there's going to
be a comeuppance and with all of these people unemployed,
then unemployment is going to go a lot higher than
four point one percent, and that's ultimately going to drag
(15:49):
down the economy. And to your point, Dan, prices are
just going to keep ticking higher and higher and higher.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Okay, do his economists, the people who are advising him,
do they not realize that.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I think that first of all. I think he's a
very strong voice. I think that he also tends to
be fairly punitive for people who don't agree with him.
So I think that economists have certainly voiced their approval
or disapproval. Obviously, if they're in the White House, their
voicing their approval. If they're not in the White House,
(16:24):
they're voicing a strong disapproval. But he's gonna say, guys,
it's been half a year and the Dow is still up,
the S and P is still up, what's the problem?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
And people to right right todays he looks pretty good now.
The market did take a dip today, a bigger dip
than I thought, because I thought that at eight thirty
this morning, the inflation numbers were not bad, and the
market did take a dip today.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Correct. So for the benefit of your listeners, I always
put in I really appreciate these opportunities. So I put
in several hours to prepare Dan and I spoke this morning.
As of this morning, the Dial was up, the Nasdaq
was up. It basically shrugged off the inflation report. Fast
forward to the end of the day, the S and
P is down almost point five percent. The Dial is
(17:18):
down almost a full percent. The Nasdaq was up by
a smidge, but it certainly wasn't a great day on
Wall Street.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Right, So what happened between the time we spoke this morning?
Was there some development?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I think what's happening is Trump's Trump's shift on Epstein
is causing some aggravation. I think that, you know, he's
still not happy with Powell. I think that there's other
stuff going on. He you know, released half of the
National Guard troops to LA So I don't think that
the market is only going to react to tariff news.
(17:55):
But I will tell you that you're right. When we
spoke this morning, it was sort of my offic in
terms of, yeah, they don't really care about placing too
much a loss changed between them and now.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah, I mean the release, which means that he in
effect deactivated half of the National I think it was
four thousand troops that he had activated, which means I
guess that things in Los Angeles are quieting down, whether
or not that means that that ICE is becoming less
active or people have expressed their discontent. So I don't
(18:30):
know that that would have been a big factor. But
obviously it's every day. Every day you look at it
and you just don't know. Okay, we're gonna take a break.
We're at the bottom the half half, the bottom of
the hour. We're at a ten thirty. We're gonna get
a quick news break here. See what's going on. When
we come back. The Professor Gregory Staller of the Boston
(18:53):
University Questrum School of Business. We want to talk about Vietnam,
which was one country that signed on quickly to a
tariff reduction, and Professor Staller today was telling me that
maybe Vietnam is having second thoughts. We'll see, we have
(19:14):
lots to talk about. I hope a lot of this
is making sense to you. Six one seven, two, five
four ten thirty six one seven, nine thirty. The reason
I do this interview on this topic on tariff's Professor
Staller is the only professor who I think makes it
clear and and is able to present it from both sides.
(19:39):
It will have impact for good or for worse on
all of us. Uh, and that is why it's important
to understand. We'll take a quick break, coming right back
on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Professor Greg Staller is my guest. Uh. He teaches at
Boston University's Questrum School of Business. I just want to
very quickly touch on Vietnam, and then I want to
get to phone calls. Vietnam was one of the first countries,
if not the first country, back around the time of April,
to agree to lower the tariffs with the US. I
(20:20):
think they went to zero tariff and we match that
if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
It depends on which version. Again you believe, they haven't
exactly publicized the final deal. Based on what I'm reading,
it's down to a twenty percent tariff from the originally
proposed forty six percent reciprocal tariff. I think what is
making it confusing is that goods transshipped through Vietnam, for example,
(20:47):
Chinese made goods rather through Vietnam, will still face a
forty percent tariff, but it's a lot better than forty
What was it previous to Liberation Day? It was probably
around fifteen or twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Okay, so it was fifteen to twenty.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
President Trump bumped it up to forty six, right.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
And then it came back down to fifteen or.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Twenty correct, Okay, So what was what was accomplished? What
he is going to argue is that it's an example
that he is a powerful leader and that this is
what happens when you cooperate with the United States.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Fair enough, let's go to phone calls and again, folks,
let's make your questions direct. And if you want to argue,
be careful. Bislvania, Bill your you're fore warned. Go ahead, Bill.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
I appreciate the four warning. Dan, Thank you, hey, professor.
We had a good thing happened over here in Pennsylvania.
I'm in the middle of the state, professor, but they
had a big palo up there in Pittsburgh today and
and it turned out that they're bringing in it said,
anywhere between seventy and ninety a billion dollars, okay, to
(22:15):
get ahead of this AI, these AI projects, I believe
it was. And one reason why they can't want they're
going to do it here in Pennsylvania is because of
all the electricity this AI stuff needs, and we got
all the we got all the all the stuff here
to make the electricity. So they're picking Pennsylvania for that.
And our Governor Shapiro was right there patting them on
(22:37):
the back, and I'd like to see that. But I
got a question for you, professor. If I said, professor, tomorrow,
you're gonna be the you're gonna be the dictator of
the United States. You can do anything you want to do,
all right. I want to know three things that we
could do, okay, to spare our children and our grandchildren
(23:00):
and great grandchildren from this massive debt. Okay, So if
I said, professor, you're in charge, whatever you say we're
going to do, tell me three things that we can
do to to help our grandkids and great grand kids
with this debt.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Great question. I think the first thing I would do
is reinstitute free trade. I don't necessarily think the tariffs
are going to help over the long term, especially amongst
our allies. Second thing I would do is make sure
that we're shoring up social security. I think that people
who work for their entire lives deserve to have a pension.
(23:37):
And the third thing I would do is I would
equalize the US dollar. I don't think a US dollar
that is so high is necessarily going to be good.
I don't think a US dollar that's so low is
going to be any good. But I would take both
a fiscal policy and monetary policy approach, and I would
try and make the United States where it was probably
(23:58):
twenty five years ago, which is the leader of the
free world economically.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Can I just jump in for one second, gentleman, I
think the solution on social Security is pretty easy, professor,
And if you think I'm wrong, help me out. We
are living longer. Americans are living longer despite the COVID epidemic,
which I think affected the actuarial table. I think to
(24:23):
solve social Security, all you have to do is push
the retirement age out a little bit every year, a
few months here, in a few months there. I don't
think any politician, Democrat or Republican is going to take
Social Security away from American citizens that have paid into
Social Security. Am I own solid ground there economics.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I absolutely agree with that, And I mean, look what
happened in France again, different culture, right when they tried
to move the retirement age and they ended up having
riots throughout the streets, etc. I agree with you. I
think it's like any pension obligation just happens to be
social Security. If you work a few years longer and
pay more into it, then you will further balance the budget.
(25:06):
But nobody wants to put their political head on the
chopping box.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Well, can I ask the professor one more question?
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Dan, Bill got to be quick for me.
Speaker 5 (25:15):
Go ahead, Yeah, I just wanted to know, professor. Any
country doesn't matter what country it is, Okay, in this
case the United States. If you leave in fifteen to
twenty million illegal immigrants, what's that due to the economy?
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Well, you know what, I don't want to open up
that pin door's box in this conversation. Bill if it's okay,
because that can be. But either way, if you want
to take a shot at that, Professor, go ahead. If not,
I can give you a pass on it. Your choice.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I mean, listen, I'm not a political scientist. I think
that immigration is a good thing for any country, especially
for the United States. We are a melting pot. I
don't think that people who are here illegally on the
necessarily accomplishing a lot, either for them or for the country.
But I don't think that immigration is necessarily a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Private patient, Yeah, I think Actually, since since our weigh
in only, we only naturalize bill a million people a year,
and that's in a country that has three hundred and
thirty million people in their population, I think we should
double or triple our legal immigration to this country. But
know who's coming in the country and know what skill
set they bring to the country.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Okay, And before I leave.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Before you leave with fortunately, Bill, I got to let
you go because we're past the break. Even you, Bill cannot,
I cannot stand in front of the freight train of
a commercial break. I'll let you go. Thank you much,
good night, take a quick break. Coming right back with
my guest, Professor Greg Staller of the Boston University Questrium
(26:50):
School of Business. Nobody knows this stuff better than Professor
Staller in my mind, and we are really blessed to
have him. We've had him two or three times in
the last couple of months because I think it's such
an important topic and such a topic that people don't understand.
Back on night Side again, Derek in Mansfield, Tony and
Maryland coming up. Uh. The only line that are opened.
(27:11):
The lines that are open right now are six, one,
seven thirty. And we will probably take this conversation into
the next hour as well, because I think that we
have lit a fuse here. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w BEAZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Back to the phone calls, Derek in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Derek
next on nice Obe with Professor Gregstahller.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
G right ahead, Hey, how you doing.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We're great, Derek. What's on your mind? What's your comment
or question for the professor?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Well, two quick comments just on the Social security kind
of caught me on that this. There's actually three easy
things we can do to fixed all security. One is
removed the one under the sixty five K on the
fight attacks. Two is what they're talking about in the
Senate right now, is investing fifty percent of our fight
attacks is into the markets. And three, every dollar that
(28:03):
they send overseas two dollar goes into our Social Security fund.
And like you said, immigration, that would help too. But
I actually I actually called on the tariff situation.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
One subject that we haven't hit, I believe is the
fact that the tariffs are the tool that Trump is
using to prevent the hot war that the CCP is
looking for, and he's rallying our allies and you know
others to basically financially tear down the CCP's financial financials
(28:35):
where they're investing so much of their money into the
their military complex there, and it's it's much better to
take them have a war financial than a hot war.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
With Okay, let's see Professor Stall. Professor Stall has been
to China fifty times. He knows that country very well.
At the same time, he has to be a little
careful of what he said is because he wants to
be able to get back there at some points to
go ahead, first of all.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
For the benefit of your listener's CCP as the Chinese
Communist Party. Essentially, what Derek is saying is that this
is an economic cold war, and essentially it is Trump's
attempts to de risk from China, both politically and economically.
I think that in theory what you're saying, Derek is correct.
(29:27):
But China currently holds trillions of dollars of US treasuries
and vice versa. So I don't think the decoupling is
diseasy as erecting an economic wall and saying we're done.
I think Trump is trying to de risk this over
a period of a few years. So what US manufacturers
are doing is they're moving away from China. They're moving
(29:48):
to Vietnam, they're moving to South Korea, they're moving to Cambodia,
et cetera. But again, it's an infrastructure challenge and everything else.
I think it's a work in progress. Ye I was
a US manufacturer for forty five years and I saw
what you know, the ccp UH did to our manufacturing
(30:09):
base in America. It was pretty devastating, to say the least.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Well, all right, appreciate Derek.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
The terraft with Vietnam, the teriffs with Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Yeah, gotta be quick, Derek, I got a bunch of
calls behind.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That was a ninety tariff they had on America. That's
why Trump went to forty five. So he tore down
that ninety percent down to whatever the number is that
you're the professor there was mentioned. I mean, essentially, what
Trump's doing is he's using Vietnam and any transship countries
as being negotiating chip for China. But again, you know,
it's it's complicated and Dan, as we talked about last month,
(30:45):
you know, even US made cars have forty percent of
non American parts in them. So this is not a
binary discussion. The two plus two is always going to
equal four. There's always going to be h some you know,
disagreement around the periphery.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Right, Yeah, thanks, Derek, Appreciate the Derek Derek, I got
other callers, so I'm got to got to run. Thank
you very much, appreciate the call. Let's go next to
Tony and Marilynd Tony, you're next on NIGHTSACER.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
Right ahead, Thanks, How doing the question is going to
be I'm going to tariff? So I thought is terist?
Typically from my experience is what I've studied, they're usually
used to like protect a certain industry or technology in
a country to get to stain level to be competitive.
This seems to me it's being used a very broad brush,
(31:30):
like a like a blunt object approach, which is counterintuitive
because if that's the case, then it becomes sort of
unsustainable the long term. How do you use this as
a tactic that's something that can sustained long term for
something that's typically does as a short term remedy to
help equalize technologies and back to the factory comment.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Let's let's take them one at a time, Tony, because
because we can forget quote, I'll give you a second shot.
Don't worry. I think that one of the industries that
President Trump is trying to protect is the US car
manufacturing industry. God go ahead, please, professor, I mean.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
I think that Tony's right, which is that tariffs are
not a long term silver bullet that are designed to
be effective, say, you know, year any year out. I
think this has been a short term test that Trump
has tried to do, you know again, whether you like
him or hate him, people have been flocking to make purchases,
(32:27):
whether it be dishwashers, whether it be cars, whether it
be iPhones, because nobody wants to pay you know, ten
percent or twenty percent more so, to an extent, one
could argue that it's working. But I agree with Tony
one hundred percent. It's not a long term solution, all right.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
But your other quick comment, toniut more behind your.
Speaker 5 (32:45):
Go ahead problem. But the other thing that's that is
so if they're buying stuff that's right now, and our
shelves is made from China, aren't we just helping the
stuff we've already bought Because those dishwashers are not being
hit made here in the US. The factories take three
to ten years to make, and I don't even know
if any of these high tech factories that they're actually
trying to build that our workers are even trained for it.
So I think it's a very complicated long term gain
(33:08):
that you're trying to sort of fix up a short
term instrument. So I I just don't know how that's
going to really work as a long term strategy. And
the impact of Mike to our allies as well.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Well, you're right, Tony. The only thing I would say
is that when people say when's the best time to build,
to plant a tree, yesterday. So if Trump wants to
do something that's helpful to a specific industry, he's got
to start at some point, or he's got to say
we're going to lose that industry. And I guess he's
made decisions that, at least in the automotive industry, that
(33:40):
we don't want to lose that industry. Tony. I appreciate
you call, real good questions comments. Thank you. Matt Is
in Revere, Matt next on Nightside.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Go ahead, Yes, how are you doing today?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
We're doing great. You're a professor Greg Staller of Boston
University Questrum School of Business.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Yes, questions about tis I do import for a living
and terlif It's always paid by a consumer, is never
paid by government or a manufacturer. I've been paying raff
in the past couple of months. Pascily it to my wholesale.
My wholesale pasident to consumers. So most countries usually do
tariff on stuff that you actually produce, so they can
(34:20):
limit the amounts coming in. So this way can they
can help the domestic product. But to be on widespread
on every single product, I don't think there's a good
idea because it's just an increase in consumer cost professor reaction.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
I agree with that one hundred percent. I think that
it's one thing to say, well, congratulations, US Treasury, we've
increased the coppers by one hundred billion dollars. If it
causes US consumers to have to spend more money, it's
not like that one hundred billion is being distributed to
all three hundred and fifty million people in the United States.
(34:59):
And that's the interesting part about this is it's one
decision of the federal government, but it's not necessarily going
to help the average Joe, the average Josephine buy the
materials that they need day and day out.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
Absolutely, I see like in the car industry, definitely needed.
It can be increased on certain products, like other country
do where I come originally from, you do actually have
a two hundred percent on cars. You produce cars, so
you wanted to cut down an amount coming in and
it does work because people does switch is you don't
want to pay an excessive amount of dollars, so people
(35:35):
does ending up switching to American products.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
But the products that we don't produce.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
And we do in an twenty thirty percent cetics on it,
it's absolutely present to consumers and it's definitely you know,
costing us more money.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
So I think, you know, going back to Tony's question
day in a couple of minutes ago, what makes cars
an interesting industry is the inventory is really short in
the sense it gets turned over pretty quickly. Dishwashers could
remain an inventory for months at a time. Other products
could remain in inventories for months at a time. With cars,
(36:12):
you know, hopefully the minute they come out to the lot,
they're going to be sold. That's why I think he
started with that industry because it's something that he can
make an immediate impact on. And it's, by the way,
a very high ticket item compared with the dishwasher.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
No question about that.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
I thank you for pickens of time. Appreciate it, Matt,
great questions, Matt, Thank.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
You, Thank you, Matt appreciate it. We have such little
time left here the callers on the line. If you
want to stay there, we can talk on the other side.
Professor Staller class dismissed as always great job. I thank
you so much for bringing clarity to this and bringing
(36:55):
it in a way which everybody, I hope understands a
little bit better better what tariffs are supposed to do.
I know that when Liberation Day occurred on April second,
there was a lot of conversations about this is the
reincarnation of the smooth Holly tariffs of the early nineteen thirties.
(37:17):
Do you still see that as a possibility in sort
of the worst case scenario, or do you think, based
upon how the presidents handled himself in the last three months,
that we're probably that as a scenario we can put
back in the closet.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
I think we can probably put that back in the closet.
I think that the difference between those tariffs and now
is something called social media, as I think that people
are able to voice their opinions either for or against,
a lot more liberally than they would, you know, hundreds
of years ago, not hundreds of years ago, but decades ago.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Ye's true buts ago. But ninety years ago is what
you're really talking about.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Right exactly. So I think that, you know, any president,
Democrat or Republican or independent can't necessarily rule by FIAT
in some ivory tower, you know, on Pennsylvania Avenue. I
think that he, she or they are only as good
as the constituents that have elected.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Yeah, thank you very much, Professor Gregory Stoller of Boston
University Questrum School of Business. You're the best. I thank
you so much for your time tonight, Greg. It was great.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Thanks, Jan I appreciate it. Talk to you soon.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Well we get back. I'd like to talk about the
economy and how you're doing, and we can focus on
tariffs a little bit, but I just want to broaden
the conversation tonight as we go into our fourth and
final hour. If you're on the line, stay there and
if not, get there. Six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
How are you doing in this economy? Back after the
(38:49):
eleven o'clock news on Nightside,
He's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZY, Boston's new radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Y very much. Dan Walkins, welcome back everyone, and we
want to thank doctor Jesse Hefter the Brookline School Committee
for the time that he spent in. That was kind
of an amazing story from Patty in Wellesley and also
a different perspective from Harvey Silverglate. That's what we do
here on Nightside, we try to get people different points
of view. And also the first callist that with Lisa
(00:26):
from Brookline, a very interesting information that I was unaware of.
I learned something on Nightside every night. And one of
my guests who has been particularly effective in the subject
area of his interest is our next guest. He teaches
at Boston University's Questrium School of Business, doctor Gregory Staller,
(00:48):
who was actually led students business students since nineteen ninety
four on fifty trips to China and in Asia other
countries as well. Professor Staller, welcome back to Night's Side.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Thank you, Dan, appreciate the opportunity.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
So what are some of the countries that you have
taken students to. I know it's more than just China.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Yeah, So we just got back in March of the
last academic year to Hong Kong and ho Chi Minh
City with twenty four students. We visited nine companies during
that full semester course. The year before we were in
Tokyo and Osaka and Japan, and the year before that
we were in Singapore. I think all sold I've probably
(01:35):
been to maybe twelve different countries in the Pacific ram
with our students over the years.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
And we're here to talk about tariffs, and particularly the
tariffs that Donald Trump has imposed beginning on what he
called Liberation Day on April second. And I know that
you philosophically are not a big fan of techariffs, although
(02:02):
obviously they exist worldwide. Tell us why so I.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
And by the way, thank you for the opportunity to return.
I always try and take a nonpartisan approach to all
of this, but I will tell you that strictly from
a personal standpoint, I believe in free trade. That has
nothing to do with being a Democrat or Republican. I
just think that there are certain companies that special countries
that specialize in X, other countries specialize in Why Why
(02:30):
should you try and reinvent the wheel by producing Y
If you're good at producing X, and that's where free
trade comes in, is that you trade X for Y
and Y for X, and all the world you know
doesn't know any differently.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
So so if it's almost like I mean, there are
are there any countries in the world who have no
tariffs whatsoever?
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I mean, I'm sure if you take you know, the
Kingdom of Monaco and one of their training partners, there
might not be any tariffs. But I think the tariffs
are like sales tax. Tariffs are like any other regulatory
approach that you have to pay in order to do business.
(03:17):
I mean, does that mean you're not going to use
the mass Pike in Massachusetts because you need to pay
a toll. It's the cost of doing business, okay.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
And President Trump believes that the US has been disadvantaged
because the tariffs that we pay for our products going
in other countries around the world greater than we actually
(03:47):
charge for countries to sell goods in this country. I'm
just trying to get a.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Clear you're absolutely correct. And again I'm all about statistics.
And you know, whether you are publican or Trump, Republican
or not. US customs duties topped one hundred billion for
the first time in a fiscal year that was reported
by Reuters a couple of days ago. So like it
or hate it, the fact of the matter is that
(04:14):
tariffs are on one part of the ledger supporting the
US economy.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Okay, so that's one hundred billion dollars. That's a lot
of money. But at the same time, in the context
of our economy, I think our economy now is about
twenty eight trillion dollars a year, if I'm not mistaken,
we also have a federal death of thirty six thirty
(04:44):
seven trillion dollars a year. I mean one hundred billion dollars,
a big amount of money, And obviously if those tariffs
were to continue, maybe you'd get to two hundred or
two hundred and fifty billion a year, but that's a
small percentage of that.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Absolutely correct. And in terms of a real GDP number,
you were correct about the thirty one trillion. On real GDP,
it's it's just under twenty four trillion. You're absolutely right.
Even if you subtract our death from that, you know,
one hundred billion dollars is certainly not chump change, but
it's not going to move the needle appreciably.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Right, So so so and again, what I'm trying to understand,
what do you think Trump, President Trump is trying to
accomplish here, what th tariffs on friend and foe alike.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
I think what he is trying to accomplish is that
he believes that the United States is being taken advantage of.
And again, you know me, Dan, your listeners hopefully know me.
I'm not going to talk politics. That's not how I've
been trained. But from a business standpoint, he remains convinced
that the United States, this is his uh, this is
(05:59):
his raise, is getting screwed. So as a result, he's
trying to do two things. He's trying to equalize fairness
in terms of charging a tax in doing business with
the United States, and he's trying to better replenish the
US treasury by using those taxes to in theory, support
(06:21):
US jobs, to support US manufacturing EXE. That's the premise
that he is trying to accomplish. And again, depending on
whether you love it or you hate it, on one
side of the ledger, he has produced one hundred billion
in US customers duties. However, the US dollar in the
first half of twenty twenty five is down approximately thirteen percent.
(06:44):
The dollar is down thirteen percent versus the euro six
percent versus the Japanese end, and inflation is high. So
again it's really sort of what side of this do
you want to take a position on.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Okay, to establish the relationship between the tariffs and inflation,
you characterize inflation as being high. Obviously, there were inflation
numbers released today which showed them nowhere near where they
were three or four years ago when we were really
dealing with inflation. I think the core number today was
(07:24):
somewhere around was it one point seven percent or you know,
there are all sorts of numbers here, but in the
context of where we have been, it's up a little
bit today. But a lot of the people, the economists
who are who were critical of Trump almost retro you know,
just I mean reactively. We're telling us that what was
(07:49):
what went on on April second was was the sky
would fall, and it hasn't quite fallen yet.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
So again that's the interesting part of this debate. And
you're absolutely right by the way cornflation picked up zero
point two percent in the month, with the annual amount
going to just under three percent. Again, depends on what
side of the fence you want to sit on. Year
to date, S and P's up six point six percent,
(08:19):
NASDAK up almost seven percent, Dow Jones industrials up four
and a half percent.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
So is.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Are tariffs killing the economy? Certainly not.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Tonight? No, right, And that's as.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
And I think that President Trump absolutely wants to tie
the tariffs to lowering interest rates through the FED. We
all know he's not a fan of Chairman Powell. And
you know right now, I think the downside of today's
announcement about inflation is it still a little bit higher
(08:57):
than the Fed wants to admit. As a result. I
don't care who the chairman is going to be. I
don't see them naturally having an argument outside of politics
that they should lower the interest rates.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Okay, on that point, we'll take a break, and there's
a lot to absorb here, lot cover, But what I
want to do with Professor Staller is to look at
it from as many different perspectives as we want. Now.
I know some of you out there know a lot
about this. Some of you don't know as much about it,
(09:33):
maybe as you'd like to, So stay with us, we'll
all learn a little bit. At the same time, I
truly want to have your point of view and ask questions.
I'm asking questions as well, so feel free. The only
dumb questions are the questions you don't have the guts
to ask. Six one, seven, two, five, four to ten
(09:55):
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. Whether
you like Donald Trump or not, he is the president.
He is able to make policies which affect all of us,
and let's try to understand what the implications of those
policies have been up until today and where they might
go from here. We'll come back on Nightside talking about tariffs,
(10:20):
which again very important, perhaps not what you call a
sexy cultural issue type, but it's a very important topic.
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
It's Nightside with Ray Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
We are delighted to be joined by Professor Gregory Staller
of Boston University, the Questrum School of Business. He has
spent a lot of time in some of the countries
that we've heard a lot about about tariffs in the
last well forty years, first teaching at Boston College and
(10:58):
now at Boston Universe. Let me for a moment play
the game with you and put you on the side
of the table of President Trump, of course, what is
the best argument that you can make in favor of
what he is doing? What do you think his goal
(11:18):
is here? Obviously I would hope his goal is not
to destroy the economy because but from his perspective, if
things were to work out, what should we where should
we be a year from now or two?
Speaker 3 (11:35):
Yeah? Great question. I think from his perspective, he has
repeatedly said, trust me, I know what I'm doing. Give
me time and again, I'm taking the midterm elections out
of this. I'm taking the facts he's in a second
term out of this. He's saying, there's no reason why
we shouldn't provide more support for the US economy through attacks,
(11:57):
which is essentially what tariffs are. And he's also saying,
while we're at it, tariffs will encourage US manufacturing, tariffs
will encourage US jobs. And so it's pretty much a
trifecta of wins. Right, You're putting more money into the
US treasury, you're supporting US manufacturers, and you're supporting US
(12:20):
jobs at the same time. And by the way, again
this is from President Trump's perspective. The Dow Jones and
the other stock market indices have done. Just fine, Comma,
thank you very much. Unemployment is at four point five percent,
pretty good, you know, a gradual increase from historic lows.
You know, we go back to twenty two and twenty
three three point five to three point seven, that was
(12:43):
the lowest in fifty years. We're doing just fine. Federal
funds rate four point twenty five percent. Why can't we
lower that? That is his approach.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
So how long will it be? Obviously you can say, well,
you've collected than one hundred billion in daris, so that's
that's some money in the bank. We've put it in perspective.
It's not the king's ransom in the context of the
federal budget or the GDP. But when can we look,
let us say, at some of the other things that
(13:15):
he hopes will occur, and that is bringing businesses back
to this country out of places like Mexico or whatever.
Because I think that's part of his his game plan
is to get some of the automobile manufacturers back out
of Mexico. That's going to take a couple of three
years at least.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Right, absolutely, But I think Trump's approach has always been
go big or go home, And his feeling is if
it's worth right. We're in the first half of the year, right,
So if we've generated one hundred billion for the fiscal
year through the end of June six months, why not
make it two hundred and fifty billion.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It would be tough time.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
If it's If it's going well, why not you know, again,
leaning harder to what's happening on August first, he's proposed
new thirty percent tariffs on the EU, Mexico and Canada,
fifty percent tariff on copper and specific Brazilian goods. If
it's going well, why not just add fuel to the
fire and keep on going.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Okay, I'll make the argument why you shouldn't, and that is,
as you raise as we raised tariffs against let us
say Brazil. Well, maybe Brazil is not a good example
because he's raising the tariffs down there to get the
guy over the president his trial taken away. But let's
say we raise tariffs in another country, they're going to
raise tariffs on us. And isn't that then, as the
(14:39):
argument goes, going to increase prices back home in America.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
So let me let me take the con and reverse
everything that I was saying right, he's killing US exports
right in the sense that the dollars no longer as strong.
US exports are going down. Why would you poke the
bear in terms of the tariff impact on our relationship
(15:06):
with our allied countries? Right? If you know, if you
have good relationships with the UK, if you have good
relationships with Canada, and that's why would you poke that bear?
There are certainly enough countries out there that you can
have a disagreement with. Why would you go after our allies,
especially after the EU? And you know, the con to
this is it's not working so well in the sense
(15:28):
that it's wonderful that he wants to cut US State
Department jobs. It's wonderful he wants to cut jobs from
the US Department of Education. But eventually there's going to
be a comeuppance and with all of these people unemployed,
then unemployment is going to go a lot higher than
four point one percent, and that's ultimately going to drag
(15:49):
down the economy. And to your point, Dan, prices are
just going to keep ticking higher and higher and higher.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Okay, do his economists, the people who are advising him,
do they not realize that.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
I think that first of all. I think he's a
very strong voice. I think that he also tends to
be fairly punitive for people who don't agree with him.
So I think that economists have certainly voiced their approval
or disapproval. Obviously, if they're in the White House, their
voicing their approval. If they're not in the White House,
(16:24):
they're voicing a strong disapproval. But he's gonna say, guys,
it's been half a year and the Dow is still up,
the S and P is still up, what's the problem?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
And people to right right todays he looks pretty good now.
The market did take a dip today, a bigger dip
than I thought, because I thought that at eight thirty
this morning, the inflation numbers were not bad, and the
market did take a dip today.
Speaker 3 (16:56):
Correct. So for the benefit of your listeners, I always
put in I really appreciate these opportunities. So I put
in several hours to prepare Dan and I spoke this morning.
As of this morning, the Dial was up, the Nasdaq
was up. It basically shrugged off the inflation report. Fast
forward to the end of the day, the S and
P is down almost point five percent. The Dial is
(17:18):
down almost a full percent. The Nasdaq was up by
a smidge, but it certainly wasn't a great day on
Wall Street.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
Right, So what happened between the time we spoke this morning?
Was there some development?
Speaker 3 (17:33):
I think what's happening is Trump's Trump's shift on Epstein
is causing some aggravation. I think that, you know, he's
still not happy with Powell. I think that there's other
stuff going on. He you know, released half of the
National Guard troops to LA So I don't think that
the market is only going to react to tariff news.
(17:55):
But I will tell you that you're right. When we
spoke this morning, it was sort of my offic in
terms of, yeah, they don't really care about placing too
much a loss changed between them and now.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah, I mean the release, which means that he in
effect deactivated half of the National I think it was
four thousand troops that he had activated, which means I
guess that things in Los Angeles are quieting down, whether
or not that means that that ICE is becoming less
active or people have expressed their discontent. So I don't
(18:30):
know that that would have been a big factor. But
obviously it's every day. Every day you look at it
and you just don't know. Okay, we're gonna take a break.
We're at the bottom the half half, the bottom of
the hour. We're at a ten thirty. We're gonna get
a quick news break here. See what's going on. When
we come back. The Professor Gregory Staller of the Boston
(18:53):
University Questrum School of Business. We want to talk about Vietnam,
which was one country that signed on quickly to a
tariff reduction, and Professor Staller today was telling me that
maybe Vietnam is having second thoughts. We'll see, we have
(19:14):
lots to talk about. I hope a lot of this
is making sense to you. Six one seven, two, five
four ten thirty six one seven, nine thirty. The reason
I do this interview on this topic on tariff's Professor
Staller is the only professor who I think makes it
clear and and is able to present it from both sides.
(19:39):
It will have impact for good or for worse on
all of us. Uh, and that is why it's important
to understand. We'll take a quick break, coming right back
on Night Side.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
It's Nightside with Dan Ray on w Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Professor Greg Staller is my guest. Uh. He teaches at
Boston University's Questrum School of Business. I just want to
very quickly touch on Vietnam, and then I want to
get to phone calls. Vietnam was one of the first countries,
if not the first country, back around the time of April,
to agree to lower the tariffs with the US. I
(20:20):
think they went to zero tariff and we match that
if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
It depends on which version. Again you believe, they haven't
exactly publicized the final deal. Based on what I'm reading,
it's down to a twenty percent tariff from the originally
proposed forty six percent reciprocal tariff. I think what is
making it confusing is that goods transshipped through Vietnam, for example,
(20:47):
Chinese made goods rather through Vietnam, will still face a
forty percent tariff, but it's a lot better than forty
What was it previous to Liberation Day? It was probably
around fifteen or twenty percent.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Okay, so it was fifteen to twenty.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
President Trump bumped it up to forty six, right.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
And then it came back down to fifteen or.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Twenty correct, Okay, So what was what was accomplished? What
he is going to argue is that it's an example
that he is a powerful leader and that this is
what happens when you cooperate with the United States.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Fair enough, let's go to phone calls and again, folks,
let's make your questions direct. And if you want to argue,
be careful. Bislvania, Bill your you're fore warned. Go ahead, Bill.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
I appreciate the four warning. Dan, Thank you, hey, professor.
We had a good thing happened over here in Pennsylvania.
I'm in the middle of the state, professor, but they
had a big palo up there in Pittsburgh today and
and it turned out that they're bringing in it said,
anywhere between seventy and ninety a billion dollars, okay, to
(22:15):
get ahead of this AI, these AI projects, I believe
it was. And one reason why they can't want they're
going to do it here in Pennsylvania is because of
all the electricity this AI stuff needs, and we got
all the we got all the all the stuff here
to make the electricity. So they're picking Pennsylvania for that.
And our Governor Shapiro was right there patting them on
(22:37):
the back, and I'd like to see that. But I
got a question for you, professor. If I said, professor, tomorrow,
you're gonna be the you're gonna be the dictator of
the United States. You can do anything you want to do,
all right. I want to know three things that we
could do, okay, to spare our children and our grandchildren
(23:00):
and great grandchildren from this massive debt. Okay, So if
I said, professor, you're in charge, whatever you say we're
going to do, tell me three things that we can
do to to help our grandkids and great grand kids
with this debt.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Great question. I think the first thing I would do
is reinstitute free trade. I don't necessarily think the tariffs
are going to help over the long term, especially amongst
our allies. Second thing I would do is make sure
that we're shoring up social security. I think that people
who work for their entire lives deserve to have a pension.
(23:37):
And the third thing I would do is I would
equalize the US dollar. I don't think a US dollar
that is so high is necessarily going to be good.
I don't think a US dollar that's so low is
going to be any good. But I would take both
a fiscal policy and monetary policy approach, and I would
try and make the United States where it was probably
(23:58):
twenty five years ago, which is the leader of the
free world economically.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Can I just jump in for one second, gentleman, I
think the solution on social Security is pretty easy, professor,
And if you think I'm wrong, help me out. We
are living longer. Americans are living longer despite the COVID epidemic,
which I think affected the actuarial table. I think to
(24:23):
solve social Security, all you have to do is push
the retirement age out a little bit every year, a
few months here, in a few months there. I don't
think any politician, Democrat or Republican is going to take
Social Security away from American citizens that have paid into
Social Security. Am I own solid ground there economics.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
I absolutely agree with that, And I mean, look what
happened in France again, different culture, right when they tried
to move the retirement age and they ended up having
riots throughout the streets, etc. I agree with you. I
think it's like any pension obligation just happens to be
social Security. If you work a few years longer and
pay more into it, then you will further balance the budget.
(25:06):
But nobody wants to put their political head on the
chopping box.
Speaker 5 (25:10):
Well, can I ask the professor one more question?
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Dan, Bill got to be quick for me.
Speaker 5 (25:15):
Go ahead, Yeah, I just wanted to know, professor. Any
country doesn't matter what country it is, Okay, in this
case the United States. If you leave in fifteen to
twenty million illegal immigrants, what's that due to the economy?
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Well, you know what, I don't want to open up
that pin door's box in this conversation. Bill if it's okay,
because that can be. But either way, if you want
to take a shot at that, Professor, go ahead. If not,
I can give you a pass on it. Your choice.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
I mean, listen, I'm not a political scientist. I think
that immigration is a good thing for any country, especially
for the United States. We are a melting pot. I
don't think that people who are here illegally on the
necessarily accomplishing a lot, either for them or for the country.
But I don't think that immigration is necessarily a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Private patient, Yeah, I think Actually, since since our weigh
in only, we only naturalize bill a million people a year,
and that's in a country that has three hundred and
thirty million people in their population, I think we should
double or triple our legal immigration to this country. But
know who's coming in the country and know what skill
set they bring to the country.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Okay, And before I leave.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Before you leave with fortunately, Bill, I got to let
you go because we're past the break. Even you, Bill cannot,
I cannot stand in front of the freight train of
a commercial break. I'll let you go. Thank you much,
good night, take a quick break. Coming right back with
my guest, Professor Greg Staller of the Boston University Questrium
(26:50):
School of Business. Nobody knows this stuff better than Professor
Staller in my mind, and we are really blessed to
have him. We've had him two or three times in
the last couple of months because I think it's such
an important topic and such a topic that people don't understand.
Back on night Side again, Derek in Mansfield, Tony and
Maryland coming up. Uh. The only line that are opened.
(27:11):
The lines that are open right now are six, one,
seven thirty. And we will probably take this conversation into
the next hour as well, because I think that we
have lit a fuse here. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w BEAZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Back to the phone calls, Derek in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Derek
next on nice Obe with Professor Gregstahller.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
G right ahead, Hey, how you doing.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
We're great, Derek. What's on your mind? What's your comment
or question for the professor?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Well, two quick comments just on the Social security kind
of caught me on that this. There's actually three easy
things we can do to fixed all security. One is
removed the one under the sixty five K on the
fight attacks. Two is what they're talking about in the
Senate right now, is investing fifty percent of our fight
attacks is into the markets. And three, every dollar that
(28:03):
they send overseas two dollar goes into our Social Security fund.
And like you said, immigration, that would help too. But
I actually I actually called on the tariff situation.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
One subject that we haven't hit, I believe is the
fact that the tariffs are the tool that Trump is
using to prevent the hot war that the CCP is
looking for, and he's rallying our allies and you know
others to basically financially tear down the CCP's financial financials
(28:35):
where they're investing so much of their money into the
their military complex there, and it's it's much better to
take them have a war financial than a hot war.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
With Okay, let's see Professor Stall. Professor Stall has been
to China fifty times. He knows that country very well.
At the same time, he has to be a little
careful of what he said is because he wants to
be able to get back there at some points to
go ahead, first of all.
Speaker 3 (29:02):
For the benefit of your listener's CCP as the Chinese
Communist Party. Essentially, what Derek is saying is that this
is an economic cold war, and essentially it is Trump's
attempts to de risk from China, both politically and economically.
I think that in theory what you're saying, Derek is correct.
(29:27):
But China currently holds trillions of dollars of US treasuries
and vice versa. So I don't think the decoupling is
diseasy as erecting an economic wall and saying we're done.
I think Trump is trying to de risk this over
a period of a few years. So what US manufacturers
are doing is they're moving away from China. They're moving
(29:48):
to Vietnam, they're moving to South Korea, they're moving to Cambodia,
et cetera. But again, it's an infrastructure challenge and everything else.
I think it's a work in progress. Ye I was
a US manufacturer for forty five years and I saw
what you know, the ccp UH did to our manufacturing
(30:09):
base in America. It was pretty devastating, to say the least.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Well, all right, appreciate Derek.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
The terraft with Vietnam, the teriffs with Vietnam.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Yeah, gotta be quick, Derek, I got a bunch of
calls behind.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
That was a ninety tariff they had on America. That's
why Trump went to forty five. So he tore down
that ninety percent down to whatever the number is that
you're the professor there was mentioned. I mean, essentially, what
Trump's doing is he's using Vietnam and any transship countries
as being negotiating chip for China. But again, you know,
it's it's complicated and Dan, as we talked about last month,
(30:45):
you know, even US made cars have forty percent of
non American parts in them. So this is not a
binary discussion. The two plus two is always going to
equal four. There's always going to be h some you know,
disagreement around the periphery.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
Right, Yeah, thanks, Derek, Appreciate the Derek Derek, I got
other callers, so I'm got to got to run. Thank
you very much, appreciate the call. Let's go next to
Tony and Marilynd Tony, you're next on NIGHTSACER.
Speaker 5 (31:09):
Right ahead, Thanks, How doing the question is going to
be I'm going to tariff? So I thought is terist?
Typically from my experience is what I've studied, they're usually
used to like protect a certain industry or technology in
a country to get to stain level to be competitive.
This seems to me it's being used a very broad brush,
(31:30):
like a like a blunt object approach, which is counterintuitive
because if that's the case, then it becomes sort of
unsustainable the long term. How do you use this as
a tactic that's something that can sustained long term for
something that's typically does as a short term remedy to
help equalize technologies and back to the factory comment.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Let's let's take them one at a time, Tony, because
because we can forget quote, I'll give you a second shot.
Don't worry. I think that one of the industries that
President Trump is trying to protect is the US car
manufacturing industry. God go ahead, please, professor, I mean.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
I think that Tony's right, which is that tariffs are
not a long term silver bullet that are designed to
be effective, say, you know, year any year out. I
think this has been a short term test that Trump
has tried to do, you know again, whether you like
him or hate him, people have been flocking to make purchases,
(32:27):
whether it be dishwashers, whether it be cars, whether it
be iPhones, because nobody wants to pay you know, ten
percent or twenty percent more so, to an extent, one
could argue that it's working. But I agree with Tony
one hundred percent. It's not a long term solution, all right.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
But your other quick comment, toniut more behind your.
Speaker 5 (32:45):
Go ahead problem. But the other thing that's that is
so if they're buying stuff that's right now, and our
shelves is made from China, aren't we just helping the
stuff we've already bought Because those dishwashers are not being
hit made here in the US. The factories take three
to ten years to make, and I don't even know
if any of these high tech factories that they're actually
trying to build that our workers are even trained for it.
So I think it's a very complicated long term gain
(33:08):
that you're trying to sort of fix up a short
term instrument. So I I just don't know how that's
going to really work as a long term strategy. And
the impact of Mike to our allies as well.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Well, you're right, Tony. The only thing I would say
is that when people say when's the best time to build,
to plant a tree, yesterday. So if Trump wants to
do something that's helpful to a specific industry, he's got
to start at some point, or he's got to say
we're going to lose that industry. And I guess he's
made decisions that, at least in the automotive industry, that
(33:40):
we don't want to lose that industry. Tony. I appreciate
you call, real good questions comments. Thank you. Matt Is
in Revere, Matt next on Nightside.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Go ahead, Yes, how are you doing today?
Speaker 2 (33:51):
We're doing great. You're a professor Greg Staller of Boston
University Questrum School of Business.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Yes, questions about tis I do import for a living
and terlif It's always paid by a consumer, is never
paid by government or a manufacturer. I've been paying raff
in the past couple of months. Pascily it to my wholesale.
My wholesale pasident to consumers. So most countries usually do
tariff on stuff that you actually produce, so they can
(34:20):
limit the amounts coming in. So this way can they
can help the domestic product. But to be on widespread
on every single product, I don't think there's a good
idea because it's just an increase in consumer cost professor reaction.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
I agree with that one hundred percent. I think that
it's one thing to say, well, congratulations, US Treasury, we've
increased the coppers by one hundred billion dollars. If it
causes US consumers to have to spend more money, it's
not like that one hundred billion is being distributed to
all three hundred and fifty million people in the United States.
(34:59):
And that's the interesting part about this is it's one
decision of the federal government, but it's not necessarily going
to help the average Joe, the average Josephine buy the
materials that they need day and day out.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
Absolutely, I see like in the car industry, definitely needed.
It can be increased on certain products, like other country
do where I come originally from, you do actually have
a two hundred percent on cars. You produce cars, so
you wanted to cut down an amount coming in and
it does work because people does switch is you don't
want to pay an excessive amount of dollars, so people
(35:35):
does ending up switching to American products.
Speaker 3 (35:37):
But the products that we don't produce.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
And we do in an twenty thirty percent cetics on it,
it's absolutely present to consumers and it's definitely you know,
costing us more money.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
So I think, you know, going back to Tony's question
day in a couple of minutes ago, what makes cars
an interesting industry is the inventory is really short in
the sense it gets turned over pretty quickly. Dishwashers could
remain an inventory for months at a time. Other products
could remain in inventories for months at a time. With cars,
(36:12):
you know, hopefully the minute they come out to the lot,
they're going to be sold. That's why I think he
started with that industry because it's something that he can
make an immediate impact on. And it's, by the way,
a very high ticket item compared with the dishwasher.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
No question about that.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
I thank you for pickens of time. Appreciate it, Matt,
great questions, Matt, Thank.
Speaker 2 (36:33):
You, Thank you, Matt appreciate it. We have such little
time left here the callers on the line. If you
want to stay there, we can talk on the other side.
Professor Staller class dismissed as always great job. I thank
you so much for bringing clarity to this and bringing
(36:55):
it in a way which everybody, I hope understands a
little bit better better what tariffs are supposed to do.
I know that when Liberation Day occurred on April second,
there was a lot of conversations about this is the
reincarnation of the smooth Holly tariffs of the early nineteen thirties.
(37:17):
Do you still see that as a possibility in sort
of the worst case scenario, or do you think, based
upon how the presidents handled himself in the last three months,
that we're probably that as a scenario we can put
back in the closet.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
I think we can probably put that back in the closet.
I think that the difference between those tariffs and now
is something called social media, as I think that people
are able to voice their opinions either for or against,
a lot more liberally than they would, you know, hundreds
of years ago, not hundreds of years ago, but decades ago.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Ye's true buts ago. But ninety years ago is what
you're really talking about.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Right exactly. So I think that, you know, any president,
Democrat or Republican or independent can't necessarily rule by FIAT
in some ivory tower, you know, on Pennsylvania Avenue. I
think that he, she or they are only as good
as the constituents that have elected.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Yeah, thank you very much, Professor Gregory Stoller of Boston
University Questrum School of Business. You're the best. I thank
you so much for your time tonight, Greg. It was great.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
Thanks, Jan I appreciate it. Talk to you soon.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Well we get back. I'd like to talk about the
economy and how you're doing, and we can focus on
tariffs a little bit, but I just want to broaden
the conversation tonight as we go into our fourth and
final hour. If you're on the line, stay there and
if not, get there. Six one, seven, two, five, four
ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
How are you doing in this economy? Back after the
(38:49):
eleven o'clock news on Nightside,
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.