April 7, 2025 • 34 mins
Dan Caplis debates Ross Kaminsky, KOA host (weekdays 9-Noon MT) on the merits of President Trump's announced tariff policies, with Dan staking out the position of trusting 47 and Ross cautioning against the potential downside of it all.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Kaples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
I don't think there's any question the American Way is
in jeopardy. But how do we preserve it? How do
we strengthen at different points of view on that? You
know mine, but really happy to have our friend Ross
Kaminski join us now from a fifty k a way
where he does a great show each and every day.
And Ross, I think it would be an understatement to
say you are ferociously opposed to the Trump tariffs. So
(00:38):
thank you for being with us to talk about all that,
and welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, thank you, And I just would like to start
by saying how much I love your opening.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Oh thank you?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, no, it's so fabulous.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
It gets me fired up every day. Yeah sure, but
thank you.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I feel like, you know, like getting ready to run
up the steps like Rocky or you.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Can just to chat with you.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Well that's the whole idea. Now, your station was just
named Station of the Year. On Saturday nights. So we're
going to light some candles and send some flowers because
when Craig and I were named Show of the Year,
I think that was the year they ended the show,
but my memory may be tricking me.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
But yeah, yeah, so I know what's that.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It's a fickle industry.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Oh yeah, no, listen, come on. None of us is
entitled to a single minute on air. So grateful for
every day that we get. Absolutely But my friend, I
know you to be a very smart guy and a
very smart financial guy. So tell folks why you are
so opposed to the Trump tariffs.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Okay, let me first start for those who maybe don't
hear me very much by saying that I probably agree
with eighty or ninety percent of Donald Trump's policies, and
part of what frustrates me so much right now is
I think he's risking all of that with this trade
war stuff. The other thing I I'd say is Donald
(02:01):
Trump has identified an actual problem in that other markets,
other countries do things to prevent American products from getting
in and it's a legit issue, and I'm grateful that
he's paying attention to it. The problem comes because I
(02:22):
deeply believe, and because Trump has been saying this for
forty years, that his primary goal with tariffs is not
as negotiating leverage to get other countries to do that,
although he would be happy with that, it would he
would be pleased if other countries said we're going to
lower our trade barriers.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
He would take that as something of a win.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
But he really believes that the use of tariffs can
help reindustrialize America, make America richer.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And that is just a weird kind.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Of economic alchemy that has been disproven for two hundred years,
every place that's been tried, every time it's tried, and
people seem to forget that the primary victims of tariffs
are not the producers in the other.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Countries that are trying to sell us this stuff. It
is bad for them.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
But the primary victims of tariffs are American consumers who
face higher prices and fewer choices and probably a recession.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And I know a lot of smart people share your concerns.
If President Trump was with us, as you know, his
counter to that would be, well, wait a second, ross,
I'm trying to accomplish a lot of different things with that.
But part of it, yeah, is I want this to
be a big source of revenue for the US, so
we can then do things like no tax on tips
and other tax relief to the working class, and we
(03:46):
can have other big tax cuts across the board. So
where do you think that's all flawed?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
I think that is an insane, ridiculous, mathematically impossible argument
because the tariffs are paid by Americans.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
They're not paid by foreigners.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Even if if the foreigners did pay did pay them,
then the prices of our stuff would go up. But
the bottom line is the tariffs are paid by Americans,
so it's just taxation in one form or another.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
So since there's not going to be more money.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
There's not going to be sort of Biden style money printing,
and thank goodness, there won't be. What will happen is
if Americans are still buying foreign stuff and paying the tariffs,
and then all that stuff is more expensive than it
used to be, then we will have less money to
buy other things that could be made in America. There
will then be less demand for other things. Then sales
(04:41):
taxes will drop, businesses will fire employees, income tax revenue
will drop, the deficit will.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Get worse, and there won't be any.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Room for cutting any any taxes, none of that stuff
that his minions are out there saying is going to work.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Dan now Ross, I think the if is the key
words you use there, right, because, as you know, President
Trump would say, yeah, if our people are then still
buying as much from these foreign countries.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
But but of course, as.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
You know, a big part of his rationale is that no,
these these terroriffs, these taxes on incoming goods will then
cause manufacturing to grow again in America, make more at home,
and then people will be able to get you know,
those affordable products while strengthening America, strengthening American employment, strengthening
(05:30):
the American tax base, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
So right, where is he wrong on that?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So where he's wrong is he's trying to have it
both ways. He and Peter Navarro and other people like
that say two things at the same time. They say,
terifts are going to push people to buy American and
tariff's are going to raise six or seven hundred billion
dollars a year.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well, which is it.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
They're only going to raise a lot of money if
they're not buying American and which case, you haven't achieved
that goal. And if they are buying American, then they
won't raise the money, and then you won't have achieved
that goal. So you can't try to do both at
the same time. You can do one or the other.
And the fact that they keep saying that they're going
to try to do both shows either that they're pretty
(06:10):
dumb when it comes to economics, or they assume we're
pretty dumb when it comes to economics. The other thing
i'd say, Dan, in response to the last part of
what you said, there's absolutely no reason to think that
anything that starts being made here that is currently being
made somewhere else will be less expensive. When it's being
made here, It's going to be anywhere from a little
bit more expensive to a lot more expensive, and we
(06:31):
are all going to be poorer because we won't be
able to afford to buy what we used to buy.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Well, let me challenge that assumption first, and that is,
if that assumes at this point just a lack of
American ingenuity, innovation, etc. That would then reduce costs. I understand,
our labor costs are always going to be higher, right,
which is another reason I think to be very concerned
about that the current status quo, because in a lot
(06:57):
of ways we're just you know, fueling at this point,
kind of this slave labor around the rest of the world.
But coming back to domestic purchases because it hits most
people right who are just understandably very sensitive to those
price points. But I think your view and I understand
the logic behind it, but I don't think it takes
into account American innovation and true free market competition, which
(07:19):
I know you'd be a great champion of, you know,
and in America then okay, you know, if we want
people to buy American, we're going to have to to
compete price wise, quality wise, et cetera. And then I
think historically Americans have shown that they do a pretty
darn good job of innovating to accomplish that.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
So I think it could play out the way that
you say we and in fact I will I will
agree with you in a certain sense here. I frequently
remind listeners that when you're buying stocks, most of the time,
you're not really betting on the politicians. You are betting
(07:57):
on the incredible entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
American business owners and creators.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
And I think of that in the sense that I
had a lot of friends, conservative friends who refused to
buy stocks when Obama was present because they thought nothing
good could possibly happen while that guy was president. And
it turned out there was a massive stock market rally
and they all missed it, and it was because they
didn't think that a good thing could happen when someone
like that was present.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So we got to separate those things.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
So I will grant you that it is that I'm
always willing to bet on American ingenuity. The issue is
that the timeframes don't match. So I had a guest
on my show today who is VP of the biggest
technology trade association in the world, and what he said
was Trump is trying to push manufacturing technology. Manufacturing to
(08:52):
change in a year or two in a way that
will require, if you were lucky, five years, but probably
more like ten. And so that's the problem, right, So
let's say we could get to what you're talking about
with Americans making the stuff instead of it being made
in China in ten years.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
I still don't actually buy your argument that we could make.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
It cheaper, but let's just say you could.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
What about for the next five years when the iPhone
that you would like to buy instead of being one
thousand dollars, because if tariffs's fifteen hundred dollars, you're either
not going to buy it or you will buy it
and you'll have five hundred dollars less for other things.
It's all economically bad and my take is that the
risk and the cost is not worth the gain. Also,
(09:39):
we only have what four point two percent on employment?
Where are all these workers going to come from?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Hey, can you do another segment? Because there are two
or three points there. I have some respectful disagreement on it,
and i'd like to follow up with you on. But
then i'd also like your take on the bigger question,
which is and I don't mean this in the pejorative,
but you know you've mentioned minions, and I think I
detect a certain tone. I think you're truly very upset
about this. And so the question that i'd ask you
(10:05):
to come back and answer is do you really think
these guys and gals are idiots? Do you think Trump
and his team are just really dumb? And because if
you're right, then that's the way they're acting and I
don't think they're that at all. Rosskominski kind enough to
join us, we'll come back get his take on that.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (10:25):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I'm really happy to have Ross Komensky with us. Does
a great show over on our sister station eight fifty KOA.
And we have a much different approach to President Trump's
current tariff plan. And I use that broadly because the
plan includes more than that, obviously, but Ross very opposed,
and we've done a segment together already you can pick
(10:50):
off the pod on that, and we've gone into some
of the specifics. I, on the other hand, I think
that right now the status quo is unacceptable. I think
that we're on a path that's on SoC sustainable and
I do trust Trump. I think he's earned that trust
on economic matters, and I respect the fact he's willing
to endure some pain politically to try to write the ship.
So that's where we resume our conversation and Ross, as
(11:13):
we set the table for those who just joined us,
I think I understand you correctly that if this was
a relatively short term play to get leverage to cut
some deals, etc. You wouldn't have the same level of concern.
Speaker 4 (11:27):
You believe though, that this is not that.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It's instead the president looking to put in place Tariff's
long term as a source of revenue and for the
other purposes, he stated, And you believe that that's going
to be disastrous. Is that a fair summary?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
That is a fair summary. And just one other really
random thing. I will buy you a beer if you
can tell me the name of the band or musician
for the bumper music that the song coming into the
segment that Ryan just played.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
I'm going to have to.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Buy my own beer, my friend. I don't recognize most
what he plays, but.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
It sounds good.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
It's h Dave Davis of the Kinks, the less famous
Kink's brother.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
It's a Kinks song, but it was Dave's song. Sorry,
and it's my favorite band.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
And I've never heard that played a bumper music, so
I just loved it.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Yeah, I didn't know any of those brothers are famous.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But no, I'll tell you, thirty or so years on air,
I don't know. I've never seen anybody a fraction as
good as Ryan when it comes to music. But hey,
let me ask you, my friend, and you know, I
know we disagree on some specific points. I want to
follow up with you on, and I want to start
with one of them, but then I really want to
get to what your fix would be, because if you're
(12:38):
new to the show or the area, Ross isn't one
of these guys who criticizes Trump on everything. As he
started the show with, you probably support what percent of
Trump's policies eighty to ninety okay, And so I do
want to get to what your fix would be. But
let me ask you the there are so many reasons
why in concept I like what in Trump's doing. And
(13:01):
one of those is something I know you care deeply about,
which is national security. And you know, whether it's a
prescription drugs, which right now we import. I think it's
almost eighty or ninety percent of into this country, whether
it's Ammo, whether it's steel, whether it's lots of other things.
We're depending on other nations, including to a disturbing extent, China.
(13:22):
For what about the national security benefit of what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
So I think that China is a special case, and
I think it deserves its own conversation that we can
have or or not. But I would separate China from
all of our other major trading partners. I would not
and do not want to be reliant on China for
(13:49):
anything really important. I think it's dumb how reliant we
are on China for pharmaceutical precursors, for rare earth minerals
and and some other things. I would not be upset
with being pretty reliant for those things on our allies,
on Japan, on Korea, on Canada and Mexico and so on,
(14:12):
all this stuff. And there's just a very fundamental concept
in economics of comparative advantage that we shouldn't try to
make everything ourselves, even things that are very important. There
are some of them that we should not try to
make ourselves. But I wouldn't be reliant on a country
that is sort of drifting from competitor to enemy for
(14:32):
things we have to have.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
And then obviously it gets more complex from there, and
there's obviously an area of common ground when it comes
to China. So to a certain extent, you know you
would support aggressive tariffs on China. I assume I know
that you're aware that President Trump, I think it was
an eighteen levied some pretty significant tariffs on China that
have been very effective to a point, and Biden even
(14:56):
I think, continued most of those. But what do you
do then about because obviously communists cheat and China cheating
and learning a lot of stuff now through Vietnam and
maybe some other countries as well. So if you're in
Trump shoes, how do you address all that without doing
something broader than just China.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Well, this is why these people get elected and have
these very difficult jobs.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
These are the hardest questions.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
And you said, you know, I, you know, you assume
I'd be in favor of very aggressive tariffs on China.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I don't know that that's true.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
We have to be very surgical about this, and we
have to remember that Americans, Americans buy an immense amount
of stuff from China.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
But normally, when.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
You have the conversation in an environment like this where
you know, we're on the radio, when we're and we
talk about lots of things, it's not a nerdy Econ
show that you and I do every day, although I'm
nerdier than you are on Econ sometimes. But Americans think
of the stuff that's coming from China. They think about tennis,
se use, tupperware, you know, final goods, cheap stuff that
(16:03):
you're buying and using yourself. But an enormous percent I
think Somewhere around half of stuff that we buy from
China is stuff that American companies use to make other things.
And if you start tariffing that stuff, then you make
the inputs to American companies more expensive. And that's very
(16:23):
bad for the American companies and for American consumers.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
And that's why this is so difficult.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
But why couldn't that stuff also be made here? Well?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
It could, but the question is could it be made? Okay,
So give you an example. I was listening to a
guy this morning on one of the financial news networks
I forget which one, and a very very well respected
technology analyst tech stock analyst, and he said, based on
his own homework, he said, iPhone that is largely assembled
(16:56):
in China that you buy for one thousand dollars, if
it were to be made in America.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Would cost you three thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Now, I don't know about you, Dan, and there's not
a sarcastic comment. I absolutely would not pay three thousand
dollars for an iPhone, which would mean I'd just keep
my old phone for a long time until it's useless,
and then I'd find something else. For the people who
do pay three thousand then they have two thousand dollars
less to buy other things?
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Right, But doesn't that ignore the secret sauce of America? Right?
Speaker 1 (17:26):
And this isn't cheerleading. We've seen it in Natch, the
secret sauce, which is free market competition in a market
this big, a population this big and well educated where yeah,
that's what it might be today. But then you turn
free market competition loose on that ingenuity, et cetera, and
you'll never be able to make it as cheaply as
China right where they're probably using slave labor to make it,
(17:48):
which is another big concern, But you're going to make
in roads there, which leads to another question, Rouss, can
you do another segment?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Because I'd love to know is the status quo acceptable?
And what would your fix be?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Us, as a smart guy thinks a lot about this stuff,
we obviously disagree, but really interesting what his solution would
be Around the Dan Capitlis Show.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast, what is.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Your reaction and what is the impact on your cans?
Speaker 1 (18:20):
You work them to spending more on defense, which they
are agreeing to finally, but how can they do that
when their economies are crashing, and they are now No.
Speaker 6 (18:30):
No, no, no, no no, Their economies are not crashing. The
markets are reacting. No, their economies are not crashing. Their
markets are reacting to a dramatic change in the global
order in terms of trade. And so what happens is
pretty straightforward. If you're a company and you make a
bunch of your products in China and all of a sudden,
shareholders are people that play the stock market realize that
it's going to cost a lot more to produce.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
In China, your stock is going to go down.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
But ultimately, the markets as long as as long as
they know what the rules are going to be moving forward,
and as long as that sentence and you can staying
where you're going to be, the markets will adjust businesses
around the world, including in trade and global trade.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
They just need to know what the rules are.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Once they know what the rules are, they will adjust
to those rules.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Hey, Rosskominsky, our guest right now, does a great show
over an eight to fifty ka nine to new iconic
time slot held for many years by Mike Rosen kind
enough to join us. We disagree about the let's call
it the Trump tariff plan at this point. I think
there's much more involved in that. We've had a very
detailed conversation over the last three segments. We won't rehash here,
(19:33):
but Ross really appreciates you staying around because I want
to get to kind of this seminal question of Okay,
we disagree, but what would your solution be? Because I
know that we both want the same thing in the end,
We want a healthy, thriving, secure, prospering America, and we
disagree right now about whether Trump's approach is more likely
(19:55):
to get us there than others.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
But what would your fix be?
Speaker 2 (20:00):
That's a great question, I think.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I think what's so difficult about this conversation about tariffs
in particular is that people tend to focus only on
the barriers that a tariff imposed by the US would
put on a foreign product coming into the US, and
we only tend to think about, well, what does that
(20:24):
mean for the foreign producer that he or they or
she whatever.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Won't sell as much stuff to us.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
What we forget is actually the more important part, and
the more important part is that by imposing those tariffs,
depend and the reaction to a tariff could be anything
from a small increasing price to a large increasing price
to a complete unavailability of the product.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
For example, Jaguar range Rover just announced they're not going
to bring any more range Rovers into the United States
for the time being.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
That's kind of an extreme, an extreme.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Case, so it could be a March Gary Creek tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
There needs you, right exactly, So there needs to be
some focus on the fact that what the tariffs do
is increase costs and reduce choices for American consumers and
American businesses.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
So you know, I'm president of the Bad Analogy Club.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So what this is like is Trump is pointing a
rhetorical gun at a trading partner and says, if you
don't do what I want, I'm gonna shoot you. But
he's got his hand in front of the barrel, and
so the trading partner knows that if Trump actually pulls
the trigger, the bullet will go through the hand and
(21:40):
hit the trading partner and hurt him or kill them
or whatever, but not without putting a big hole in
Trump's own hand.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
And that's what makes this difficult.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
So I think, more often than not, I think that
the cost to the American consumer, which doesn't go talk
to about isn't talked about enough is larger and more
important than the potential benefits to American producers of getting
the other guys to open their markets.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
What do we do about it?
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Look, I don't think it's crazy for Trump to threaten
tariffs and maybe even briefly impose tariffs to try to
get them to back down. But that's not what he's doing,
and he said over and over and over that his
goal is to keep tariffs in place. I don't think
it's a bad gambit if that's all it was, to
say we're going to tearriff you until you lower, and
(22:33):
then see how the game theory plays out. It's basically
a game of chicken. But it's not what he's doing.
So what else could you do? There are other ways
to put pressure, but you know, put make it difficult
or expensive for tourists from some country to come here,
or for students to come here.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
There are a lot of different things you could do.
But the other thing that folks forget about.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
They think, well, we're gonna put tariffs into the other guys,
they're going to have to lower. But the other guys
have this same problem that our politicians have, which is
that there are basis of political power that are highly
concentrated and highly organized industrial labor unions, farmers for example.
So think about from the perspective of the French or
(23:16):
the Canadians. The Canadians, right, they've got big tariffs on
our dairy and they have a big dairy industry. So
you've got several thousand dairy farmers in Canada who are
well organized and contribute a lot of money to a
political action committee. And if the politicians don't do what
they want, they're going to run all these ads that
they're going to contribute to primaries and beat all these guys.
And so they get the tariffs put in, and the tariffs,
(23:39):
you know, harm every Canadian to the tune of I'm
just going to make up a number thirty dollars a
year while benefiting the dairy industry one hundred million dollars
a year again, whatever the number is. And it's not
that easy for Trump to just tell the Canadians you
need to lower your tariffs, because they've got their own
(24:00):
domestic politics to deal with, in addition to the domestic
politics of not wanting to look like you're being pushed
around by Donald Trump. So all of this is harder
than most people think, right, But aren't.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
We at the point right now where Americans can't be
subsidizing these foreign politicians and their domestic political concerns? And
russ I love your analogy here for this reason, because, yes,
for President Trump to accomplish what he needs to to
benefit the American people.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Long term, there will be pain. There will be.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Political pain to him, which he's suffering right now, there
will be pain to America. But isn't it true over
the course of American history and world history that there
has to be almost always some pain endured in order
to take on and solve major problems which are causing
(24:54):
us great harm, whether you compare it to a war scenario,
which I know is different in material ways, But but
isn't that almost always the pattern? There's no painless way
to take on and defeat these big problems we have
right now.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
So yes, and no, I think many people, including probably you,
right now, are overstating the degree of the problem. It
is a real problem that foreign countries block American producers
from selling some stuff into these various countries. But how
big a problem is it? We have four point two
percent on employment that's actually higher than it was. We
(25:31):
have faster economic growth than any other Western industrialized nation.
We have a higher standard of living than any other
Western industrialized nation.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
So yes, we could be doing a little better.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
But so many people, including Trump, are selling this as
if we're doing really badly, and we're not. And I
do think that's important. And I think that the goal
that you're describing, you know, making you didn't say make everything, but.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Make lots of stuff here.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Is somewhere between difficult and impossible, but more importantly, it's
not desirable.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Well, and Russ, I understand that your view would be
and there's no silver bullet, but that these tariffs aren't
the solution to this. But obviously we're on an unsustainable
debt and deficit trajectory. I think that in terms of
the separation between you know, the financial haves and having
more and the haves not have nots in America, I
(26:24):
think is unsustainable, you know, politically and in terms of
national coherence and national unity, I think that national security.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
But how would has help?
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Well?
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I think the point here is that the more we
can rebuild US manufacturing, right, because I mean, everybody knows
the stats, right, US manufacturing has really been not completely gutted,
but substantially reduced since nineteen seventy nine. And these manufacturing jobs,
they tend to pay better, they tend to be more stable,
(26:57):
they tend to create other jobs that you know, it
would benefit this nation. I think in lots of ways
to have a much more stable, larger manufacturing base in America.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
I couldn't disagree more. I couldn't disagree more.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
Wells most of the areas where we have outsourced, where
we've outsourced, manufacturing is not the high value stuff, right.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
We manufacture an immense.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Amount of stuff in America more than ever, and our
share of global manufacturing it did decline in the early
part of the rise of China, just like every Western
nation lost some manufacturing to China, and then it's been
stabler up since then.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
We manufacture a lot. I don't want us to.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Make T shirts and sneakers here, and where are you
going to get the workers?
Speaker 2 (27:42):
And here's the other thing.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
I think that whatever manufacturing does come, an immense amount
of it is actually going to be done by automation
and not by people, which would be actually better, right,
don't I think chasing all these manufacturing jobs just doesn't
make sense.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
But I think where you get to workers as you
shift them out of the T shirt manufacturing and you
shift them into these manufacturing jobs which average about one
hundred and two thousand dollars a year with the benefits
package and everything else. But Ross, can you do another
segment or I know you've been generous with.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Your time just for you, I will Danne.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Okay, thank you, my friend. We'll be back with Ross Kominski.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
So glad to have Ross Kominski with us. Does a
great show nine to noon on eight to fifty KOA.
We generally disagree a specifics and more broadly on what
President Trump is doing right now with the tariffs, but
so great to have Ross's perspective and appreciate you being
so generous with your time.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
In our last segment together, I really want to zero
in on a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Sounds to me.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Tell me if I'm wrong that you're saying that you're
okay with the status quo right now, You're okay with
these trade deficits overall, you think America is doing really well.
You mess with this and is anything substantial you would
do right now to address the trade deficits?
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Okay, So I think you just put words in my
mouth that were the exact opposite of all what I
said a few minutes ago, Right, I said that it
is I said Donald Trump has identified a legitimate problem
with other countries having tariffs and other non tariff barriers
against our products, and I'm glad he's trying to do
(29:29):
something about it. And if that's all he were trying
to do, I would probably reach your same conclusion, at
least at first, before we see how the game plays out. Hey,
let's give it a try and see how the game
plays out. But that's not really what he's trying to
do when he's imposing tariff levels that go way.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Beyond that and are going to cause a lot of pain.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
The other thing that he's doing by stopping and starting
and stopping and starting, is he is injecting so much
uncertainty into the economy that I personally think a recession
is coming even if you back, because who's gonna make
multi billion dollar plans based on a guy who can
change his mind five minutes later. So no, I don't
think everything's perfect, but I also don't think we're doing
(30:12):
we're doing badly. I would try to get these other
places to open markets. Frankly, I don't have the answers
on everything we could try to do to get them
to open markets. I would try it, but again, what
Donald Trump is doing is not primarily about that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Well, and I think that is a great way to
bring this full circle and wrap up this last segment
that we have about two or three minutes in, because
I disagree with your premise that this is a very
long term play for him, rather than leverage to kind
of reset the deals across the world that matter most now.
Neither of us can know for sure right We're gonna
(30:50):
find out together, but I do believe that's his play
right now. It'll turn out to be a brilliant one.
It will accomplish a lot, and he and the GOP
and the country will soar. But we'll find out together
on that. But Russ, my final question is, and I
know you you're a very thoughtful guy. You think a
lot about all of these issues. You're not just any
(31:12):
kind of Trump hater, But do you really think these
guys and girls are stupid in the administration? I mean,
because if you're right about how disastrous this is, it
would be a historically kind of biblically stupid, well biblically
strong word, it would be a historically stupid move, and
that has not been his history.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So I think it depends on the person.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I think there are you and I well know from
our overall experience during COVID society has experienced during COVID
that just because somebody is an expert or has a
fabulous degree from somewhere doesn't mean they're right, and definitely
doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. Now, I do
(31:57):
think there is something to be said for somebody who
studied something at a great school, and all that I do.
I have a little bit of faith and experts. But
I think Peter Navarro in particular, even though he has
a Harvard PhD, is a blight on this country, and
he is either incredibly ignorant of history and economic theory,
(32:20):
but not just the theory right the actual practice and
what's happened during trade wars, or he's lying to everybody.
A lot of the other people who are out there
talking about this stuff in a positive way, I just
think they're good soldiers. I think they either don't know
one way or another, or they don't care. It's my
job to support the president. I'll go say what he
wants me to say. So I think it's some combination
(32:41):
of all that.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
You really don't think Trump's doing this because of Peter Navarro, Right,
He's not going to bet as president or see in
the country on that.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
I mean, Mark, the whole bunch of them.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
But but isn't it when you talk about everybody with
the degrees and everything. Trump's degree is from the University
of real life, and he's had a lot of success personally,
a lot of success in his first term financially. So
what is it that would make you think that suddenly
he would do something as disastrous as you believe this
is going to be.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
So Peter Navarro is the symptom, not the cause.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Trump hired Peter Navarro and has Peter Navarro around him
because Navarro confirms what.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Trump has long believed.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Trump has long been an opponent of free trade, going
back at least forty years.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
So this is not new. This is why Dan, five.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Or six weeks ago, for the first time in my
fifteen years on radio, I went on my radio show
and told listeners. I have never been more convinced in
my entire life that the stock market is going down.
And I am selling stocks, and you know I used
to be a professional trader, right, so first time in
fifteen years I did that because I knew that Trump
is not doing this to even out trade balances. By
(33:49):
the way, to answer your previous question, I don't care
about trade deficits.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
There irrelevant.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Peter Navarro is Lee is confirmation bias for Trump eating
him down a.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Very dangerous path.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
And yes, Trump is pretty good at real estate, but
he doesn't know economics.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
And Ross's you know the music means we're done.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
But I think Trump there have been a lot of
examples of Trump doing things that really smart people thought
would fail and he then succeeded.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
And I know we both want this country to succeed,
and indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Thank you for being with us today. Love your show
nine to noon on eight to fifty k Awa. Please
do check out Ross's show if you don't already, look
forward to the next conversation.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
My friend, Thanks for having me, Thank you you take
care of Thank you Ryan, Thank you, Kelly
This is Dan Kaples and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
I don't think there's any question the American Way is
in jeopardy. But how do we preserve it? How do
we strengthen at different points of view on that? You
know mine, but really happy to have our friend Ross
Kaminski join us now from a fifty k a way
where he does a great show each and every day.
And Ross, I think it would be an understatement to
say you are ferociously opposed to the Trump tariffs. So
(00:38):
thank you for being with us to talk about all that,
and welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Well, thank you, And I just would like to start
by saying how much I love your opening.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Oh thank you?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah, no, it's so fabulous.
Speaker 4 (00:51):
It gets me fired up every day. Yeah sure, but
thank you.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I feel like, you know, like getting ready to run
up the steps like Rocky or you.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Can just to chat with you.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Well that's the whole idea. Now, your station was just
named Station of the Year. On Saturday nights. So we're
going to light some candles and send some flowers because
when Craig and I were named Show of the Year,
I think that was the year they ended the show,
but my memory may be tricking me.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
But yeah, yeah, so I know what's that.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It's a fickle industry.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Oh yeah, no, listen, come on. None of us is
entitled to a single minute on air. So grateful for
every day that we get. Absolutely But my friend, I
know you to be a very smart guy and a
very smart financial guy. So tell folks why you are
so opposed to the Trump tariffs.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Okay, let me first start for those who maybe don't
hear me very much by saying that I probably agree
with eighty or ninety percent of Donald Trump's policies, and
part of what frustrates me so much right now is
I think he's risking all of that with this trade
war stuff. The other thing I I'd say is Donald
(02:01):
Trump has identified an actual problem in that other markets,
other countries do things to prevent American products from getting
in and it's a legit issue, and I'm grateful that
he's paying attention to it. The problem comes because I
(02:22):
deeply believe, and because Trump has been saying this for
forty years, that his primary goal with tariffs is not
as negotiating leverage to get other countries to do that,
although he would be happy with that, it would he
would be pleased if other countries said we're going to
lower our trade barriers.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
He would take that as something of a win.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
But he really believes that the use of tariffs can
help reindustrialize America, make America richer.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And that is just a weird kind.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Of economic alchemy that has been disproven for two hundred years,
every place that's been tried, every time it's tried, and
people seem to forget that the primary victims of tariffs
are not the producers in the other.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Countries that are trying to sell us this stuff. It
is bad for them.
Speaker 3 (03:13):
But the primary victims of tariffs are American consumers who
face higher prices and fewer choices and probably a recession.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
And I know a lot of smart people share your concerns.
If President Trump was with us, as you know, his
counter to that would be, well, wait a second, ross,
I'm trying to accomplish a lot of different things with that.
But part of it, yeah, is I want this to
be a big source of revenue for the US, so
we can then do things like no tax on tips
and other tax relief to the working class, and we
(03:46):
can have other big tax cuts across the board. So
where do you think that's all flawed?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
I think that is an insane, ridiculous, mathematically impossible argument
because the tariffs are paid by Americans.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
They're not paid by foreigners.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Even if if the foreigners did pay did pay them,
then the prices of our stuff would go up. But
the bottom line is the tariffs are paid by Americans,
so it's just taxation in one form or another.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
So since there's not going to be more money.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
There's not going to be sort of Biden style money printing,
and thank goodness, there won't be. What will happen is
if Americans are still buying foreign stuff and paying the tariffs,
and then all that stuff is more expensive than it
used to be, then we will have less money to
buy other things that could be made in America. There
will then be less demand for other things. Then sales
(04:41):
taxes will drop, businesses will fire employees, income tax revenue
will drop, the deficit will.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Get worse, and there won't be any.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Room for cutting any any taxes, none of that stuff
that his minions are out there saying is going to work.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Dan now Ross, I think the if is the key
words you use there, right, because, as you know, President
Trump would say, yeah, if our people are then still
buying as much from these foreign countries.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
But but of course, as.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
You know, a big part of his rationale is that no,
these these terroriffs, these taxes on incoming goods will then
cause manufacturing to grow again in America, make more at home,
and then people will be able to get you know,
those affordable products while strengthening America, strengthening American employment, strengthening
(05:30):
the American tax base, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
So right, where is he wrong on that?
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So where he's wrong is he's trying to have it
both ways. He and Peter Navarro and other people like
that say two things at the same time. They say,
terifts are going to push people to buy American and
tariff's are going to raise six or seven hundred billion
dollars a year.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well, which is it.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
They're only going to raise a lot of money if
they're not buying American and which case, you haven't achieved
that goal. And if they are buying American, then they
won't raise the money, and then you won't have achieved
that goal. So you can't try to do both at
the same time. You can do one or the other.
And the fact that they keep saying that they're going
to try to do both shows either that they're pretty
(06:10):
dumb when it comes to economics, or they assume we're
pretty dumb when it comes to economics. The other thing
i'd say, Dan, in response to the last part of
what you said, there's absolutely no reason to think that
anything that starts being made here that is currently being
made somewhere else will be less expensive. When it's being
made here, It's going to be anywhere from a little
bit more expensive to a lot more expensive, and we
(06:31):
are all going to be poorer because we won't be
able to afford to buy what we used to buy.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Well, let me challenge that assumption first, and that is,
if that assumes at this point just a lack of
American ingenuity, innovation, etc. That would then reduce costs. I understand,
our labor costs are always going to be higher, right,
which is another reason I think to be very concerned
about that the current status quo, because in a lot
(06:57):
of ways we're just you know, fueling at this point,
kind of this slave labor around the rest of the world.
But coming back to domestic purchases because it hits most
people right who are just understandably very sensitive to those
price points. But I think your view and I understand
the logic behind it, but I don't think it takes
into account American innovation and true free market competition, which
(07:19):
I know you'd be a great champion of, you know,
and in America then okay, you know, if we want
people to buy American, we're going to have to to
compete price wise, quality wise, et cetera. And then I
think historically Americans have shown that they do a pretty
darn good job of innovating to accomplish that.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
So I think it could play out the way that
you say we and in fact I will I will
agree with you in a certain sense here. I frequently
remind listeners that when you're buying stocks, most of the time,
you're not really betting on the politicians. You are betting
(07:57):
on the incredible entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
American business owners and creators.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
And I think of that in the sense that I
had a lot of friends, conservative friends who refused to
buy stocks when Obama was present because they thought nothing
good could possibly happen while that guy was president. And
it turned out there was a massive stock market rally
and they all missed it, and it was because they
didn't think that a good thing could happen when someone
like that was present.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
So we got to separate those things.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
So I will grant you that it is that I'm
always willing to bet on American ingenuity. The issue is
that the timeframes don't match. So I had a guest
on my show today who is VP of the biggest
technology trade association in the world, and what he said
was Trump is trying to push manufacturing technology. Manufacturing to
(08:52):
change in a year or two in a way that
will require, if you were lucky, five years, but probably
more like ten. And so that's the problem, right, So
let's say we could get to what you're talking about
with Americans making the stuff instead of it being made
in China in ten years.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
I still don't actually buy your argument that we could make.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
It cheaper, but let's just say you could.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
What about for the next five years when the iPhone
that you would like to buy instead of being one
thousand dollars, because if tariffs's fifteen hundred dollars, you're either
not going to buy it or you will buy it
and you'll have five hundred dollars less for other things.
It's all economically bad and my take is that the
risk and the cost is not worth the gain. Also,
(09:39):
we only have what four point two percent on employment?
Where are all these workers going to come from?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Hey, can you do another segment? Because there are two
or three points there. I have some respectful disagreement on it,
and i'd like to follow up with you on. But
then i'd also like your take on the bigger question,
which is and I don't mean this in the pejorative,
but you know you've mentioned minions, and I think I
detect a certain tone. I think you're truly very upset
about this. And so the question that i'd ask you
(10:05):
to come back and answer is do you really think
these guys and gals are idiots? Do you think Trump
and his team are just really dumb? And because if
you're right, then that's the way they're acting and I
don't think they're that at all. Rosskominski kind enough to
join us, we'll come back get his take on that.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (10:25):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
I'm really happy to have Ross Komensky with us. Does
a great show over on our sister station eight fifty KOA.
And we have a much different approach to President Trump's
current tariff plan. And I use that broadly because the
plan includes more than that, obviously, but Ross very opposed,
and we've done a segment together already you can pick
(10:50):
off the pod on that, and we've gone into some
of the specifics. I, on the other hand, I think
that right now the status quo is unacceptable. I think
that we're on a path that's on SoC sustainable and
I do trust Trump. I think he's earned that trust
on economic matters, and I respect the fact he's willing
to endure some pain politically to try to write the ship.
So that's where we resume our conversation and Ross, as
(11:13):
we set the table for those who just joined us,
I think I understand you correctly that if this was
a relatively short term play to get leverage to cut
some deals, etc. You wouldn't have the same level of concern.
Speaker 4 (11:27):
You believe though, that this is not that.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It's instead the president looking to put in place Tariff's
long term as a source of revenue and for the
other purposes, he stated, And you believe that that's going
to be disastrous. Is that a fair summary?
Speaker 3 (11:43):
That is a fair summary. And just one other really
random thing. I will buy you a beer if you
can tell me the name of the band or musician
for the bumper music that the song coming into the
segment that Ryan just played.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
I'm going to have to.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Buy my own beer, my friend. I don't recognize most
what he plays, but.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
It sounds good.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
It's h Dave Davis of the Kinks, the less famous
Kink's brother.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
It's a Kinks song, but it was Dave's song. Sorry,
and it's my favorite band.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
And I've never heard that played a bumper music, so
I just loved it.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Yeah, I didn't know any of those brothers are famous.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
But no, I'll tell you, thirty or so years on air,
I don't know. I've never seen anybody a fraction as
good as Ryan when it comes to music. But hey,
let me ask you, my friend, and you know, I
know we disagree on some specific points. I want to
follow up with you on, and I want to start
with one of them, but then I really want to
get to what your fix would be, because if you're
(12:38):
new to the show or the area, Ross isn't one
of these guys who criticizes Trump on everything. As he
started the show with, you probably support what percent of
Trump's policies eighty to ninety okay, And so I do
want to get to what your fix would be. But
let me ask you the there are so many reasons
why in concept I like what in Trump's doing. And
(13:01):
one of those is something I know you care deeply about,
which is national security. And you know, whether it's a
prescription drugs, which right now we import. I think it's
almost eighty or ninety percent of into this country, whether
it's Ammo, whether it's steel, whether it's lots of other things.
We're depending on other nations, including to a disturbing extent, China.
(13:22):
For what about the national security benefit of what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
So I think that China is a special case, and
I think it deserves its own conversation that we can
have or or not. But I would separate China from
all of our other major trading partners. I would not
and do not want to be reliant on China for
(13:49):
anything really important. I think it's dumb how reliant we
are on China for pharmaceutical precursors, for rare earth minerals
and and some other things. I would not be upset
with being pretty reliant for those things on our allies,
on Japan, on Korea, on Canada and Mexico and so on,
(14:12):
all this stuff. And there's just a very fundamental concept
in economics of comparative advantage that we shouldn't try to
make everything ourselves, even things that are very important. There
are some of them that we should not try to
make ourselves. But I wouldn't be reliant on a country
that is sort of drifting from competitor to enemy for
(14:32):
things we have to have.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
And then obviously it gets more complex from there, and
there's obviously an area of common ground when it comes
to China. So to a certain extent, you know you
would support aggressive tariffs on China. I assume I know
that you're aware that President Trump, I think it was
an eighteen levied some pretty significant tariffs on China that
have been very effective to a point, and Biden even
(14:56):
I think, continued most of those. But what do you
do then about because obviously communists cheat and China cheating
and learning a lot of stuff now through Vietnam and
maybe some other countries as well. So if you're in
Trump shoes, how do you address all that without doing
something broader than just China.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Well, this is why these people get elected and have
these very difficult jobs.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
These are the hardest questions.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
And you said, you know, I, you know, you assume
I'd be in favor of very aggressive tariffs on China.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
I don't know that that's true.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
We have to be very surgical about this, and we
have to remember that Americans, Americans buy an immense amount
of stuff from China.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
But normally, when.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
You have the conversation in an environment like this where
you know, we're on the radio, when we're and we
talk about lots of things, it's not a nerdy Econ
show that you and I do every day, although I'm
nerdier than you are on Econ sometimes. But Americans think
of the stuff that's coming from China. They think about tennis,
se use, tupperware, you know, final goods, cheap stuff that
(16:03):
you're buying and using yourself. But an enormous percent I
think Somewhere around half of stuff that we buy from
China is stuff that American companies use to make other things.
And if you start tariffing that stuff, then you make
the inputs to American companies more expensive. And that's very
(16:23):
bad for the American companies and for American consumers.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
And that's why this is so difficult.
Speaker 4 (16:31):
But why couldn't that stuff also be made here? Well?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
It could, but the question is could it be made? Okay,
So give you an example. I was listening to a
guy this morning on one of the financial news networks
I forget which one, and a very very well respected
technology analyst tech stock analyst, and he said, based on
his own homework, he said, iPhone that is largely assembled
(16:56):
in China that you buy for one thousand dollars, if
it were to be made in America.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Would cost you three thousand dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Now, I don't know about you, Dan, and there's not
a sarcastic comment. I absolutely would not pay three thousand
dollars for an iPhone, which would mean I'd just keep
my old phone for a long time until it's useless,
and then I'd find something else. For the people who
do pay three thousand then they have two thousand dollars
less to buy other things?
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Right, But doesn't that ignore the secret sauce of America? Right?
Speaker 1 (17:26):
And this isn't cheerleading. We've seen it in Natch, the
secret sauce, which is free market competition in a market
this big, a population this big and well educated where yeah,
that's what it might be today. But then you turn
free market competition loose on that ingenuity, et cetera, and
you'll never be able to make it as cheaply as
China right where they're probably using slave labor to make it,
(17:48):
which is another big concern, But you're going to make
in roads there, which leads to another question, Rouss, can
you do another segment?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Because I'd love to know is the status quo acceptable?
And what would your fix be?
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Us, as a smart guy thinks a lot about this stuff,
we obviously disagree, but really interesting what his solution would
be Around the Dan Capitlis Show.
Speaker 5 (18:13):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast, what is.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Your reaction and what is the impact on your cans?
Speaker 1 (18:20):
You work them to spending more on defense, which they
are agreeing to finally, but how can they do that
when their economies are crashing, and they are now No.
Speaker 6 (18:30):
No, no, no, no no, Their economies are not crashing. The
markets are reacting. No, their economies are not crashing. Their
markets are reacting to a dramatic change in the global
order in terms of trade. And so what happens is
pretty straightforward. If you're a company and you make a
bunch of your products in China and all of a sudden,
shareholders are people that play the stock market realize that
it's going to cost a lot more to produce.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
In China, your stock is going to go down.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
But ultimately, the markets as long as as long as
they know what the rules are going to be moving forward,
and as long as that sentence and you can staying
where you're going to be, the markets will adjust businesses
around the world, including in trade and global trade.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
They just need to know what the rules are.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Once they know what the rules are, they will adjust
to those rules.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
Hey, Rosskominsky, our guest right now, does a great show
over an eight to fifty ka nine to new iconic
time slot held for many years by Mike Rosen kind
enough to join us. We disagree about the let's call
it the Trump tariff plan at this point. I think
there's much more involved in that. We've had a very
detailed conversation over the last three segments. We won't rehash here,
(19:33):
but Ross really appreciates you staying around because I want
to get to kind of this seminal question of Okay,
we disagree, but what would your solution be? Because I
know that we both want the same thing in the end,
We want a healthy, thriving, secure, prospering America, and we
disagree right now about whether Trump's approach is more likely
(19:55):
to get us there than others.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
But what would your fix be?
Speaker 2 (20:00):
That's a great question, I think.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I think what's so difficult about this conversation about tariffs
in particular is that people tend to focus only on
the barriers that a tariff imposed by the US would
put on a foreign product coming into the US, and
we only tend to think about, well, what does that
(20:24):
mean for the foreign producer that he or they or
she whatever.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Won't sell as much stuff to us.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
What we forget is actually the more important part, and
the more important part is that by imposing those tariffs,
depend and the reaction to a tariff could be anything
from a small increasing price to a large increasing price
to a complete unavailability of the product.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
For example, Jaguar range Rover just announced they're not going
to bring any more range Rovers into the United States
for the time being.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
That's kind of an extreme, an extreme.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Case, so it could be a March Gary Creek tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
There needs you, right exactly, So there needs to be
some focus on the fact that what the tariffs do
is increase costs and reduce choices for American consumers and
American businesses.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
So you know, I'm president of the Bad Analogy Club.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
So what this is like is Trump is pointing a
rhetorical gun at a trading partner and says, if you
don't do what I want, I'm gonna shoot you. But
he's got his hand in front of the barrel, and
so the trading partner knows that if Trump actually pulls
the trigger, the bullet will go through the hand and
(21:40):
hit the trading partner and hurt him or kill them
or whatever, but not without putting a big hole in
Trump's own hand.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
And that's what makes this difficult.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
So I think, more often than not, I think that
the cost to the American consumer, which doesn't go talk
to about isn't talked about enough is larger and more
important than the potential benefits to American producers of getting
the other guys to open their markets.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
What do we do about it?
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Look, I don't think it's crazy for Trump to threaten
tariffs and maybe even briefly impose tariffs to try to
get them to back down. But that's not what he's doing,
and he said over and over and over that his
goal is to keep tariffs in place. I don't think
it's a bad gambit if that's all it was, to
say we're going to tearriff you until you lower, and
(22:33):
then see how the game theory plays out. It's basically
a game of chicken. But it's not what he's doing.
So what else could you do? There are other ways
to put pressure, but you know, put make it difficult
or expensive for tourists from some country to come here,
or for students to come here.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
There are a lot of different things you could do.
But the other thing that folks forget about.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
They think, well, we're gonna put tariffs into the other guys,
they're going to have to lower. But the other guys
have this same problem that our politicians have, which is
that there are basis of political power that are highly
concentrated and highly organized industrial labor unions, farmers for example.
So think about from the perspective of the French or
(23:16):
the Canadians. The Canadians, right, they've got big tariffs on
our dairy and they have a big dairy industry. So
you've got several thousand dairy farmers in Canada who are
well organized and contribute a lot of money to a
political action committee. And if the politicians don't do what
they want, they're going to run all these ads that
they're going to contribute to primaries and beat all these guys.
And so they get the tariffs put in, and the tariffs,
(23:39):
you know, harm every Canadian to the tune of I'm
just going to make up a number thirty dollars a
year while benefiting the dairy industry one hundred million dollars
a year again, whatever the number is. And it's not
that easy for Trump to just tell the Canadians you
need to lower your tariffs, because they've got their own
(24:00):
domestic politics to deal with, in addition to the domestic
politics of not wanting to look like you're being pushed
around by Donald Trump. So all of this is harder
than most people think, right, But aren't.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
We at the point right now where Americans can't be
subsidizing these foreign politicians and their domestic political concerns? And
russ I love your analogy here for this reason, because, yes,
for President Trump to accomplish what he needs to to
benefit the American people.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Long term, there will be pain. There will be.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Political pain to him, which he's suffering right now, there
will be pain to America. But isn't it true over
the course of American history and world history that there
has to be almost always some pain endured in order
to take on and solve major problems which are causing
(24:54):
us great harm, whether you compare it to a war scenario,
which I know is different in material ways, But but
isn't that almost always the pattern? There's no painless way
to take on and defeat these big problems we have
right now.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
So yes, and no, I think many people, including probably you,
right now, are overstating the degree of the problem. It
is a real problem that foreign countries block American producers
from selling some stuff into these various countries. But how
big a problem is it? We have four point two
percent on employment that's actually higher than it was. We
(25:31):
have faster economic growth than any other Western industrialized nation.
We have a higher standard of living than any other
Western industrialized nation.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
So yes, we could be doing a little better.
Speaker 3 (25:41):
But so many people, including Trump, are selling this as
if we're doing really badly, and we're not. And I
do think that's important. And I think that the goal
that you're describing, you know, making you didn't say make everything, but.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Make lots of stuff here.
Speaker 3 (25:56):
Is somewhere between difficult and impossible, but more importantly, it's
not desirable.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Well, and Russ, I understand that your view would be
and there's no silver bullet, but that these tariffs aren't
the solution to this. But obviously we're on an unsustainable
debt and deficit trajectory. I think that in terms of
the separation between you know, the financial haves and having
more and the haves not have nots in America, I
(26:24):
think is unsustainable, you know, politically and in terms of
national coherence and national unity, I think that national security.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
But how would has help?
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Well?
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I think the point here is that the more we
can rebuild US manufacturing, right, because I mean, everybody knows
the stats, right, US manufacturing has really been not completely gutted,
but substantially reduced since nineteen seventy nine. And these manufacturing jobs,
they tend to pay better, they tend to be more stable,
(26:57):
they tend to create other jobs that you know, it
would benefit this nation. I think in lots of ways
to have a much more stable, larger manufacturing base in America.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
I couldn't disagree more. I couldn't disagree more.
Speaker 3 (27:10):
Wells most of the areas where we have outsourced, where
we've outsourced, manufacturing is not the high value stuff, right.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
We manufacture an immense.
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Amount of stuff in America more than ever, and our
share of global manufacturing it did decline in the early
part of the rise of China, just like every Western
nation lost some manufacturing to China, and then it's been
stabler up since then.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
We manufacture a lot. I don't want us to.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Make T shirts and sneakers here, and where are you
going to get the workers?
Speaker 2 (27:42):
And here's the other thing.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
I think that whatever manufacturing does come, an immense amount
of it is actually going to be done by automation
and not by people, which would be actually better, right,
don't I think chasing all these manufacturing jobs just doesn't
make sense.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
But I think where you get to workers as you
shift them out of the T shirt manufacturing and you
shift them into these manufacturing jobs which average about one
hundred and two thousand dollars a year with the benefits
package and everything else. But Ross, can you do another
segment or I know you've been generous with.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
Your time just for you, I will Danne.
Speaker 1 (28:17):
Okay, thank you, my friend. We'll be back with Ross Kominski.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
So glad to have Ross Kominski with us. Does a
great show nine to noon on eight to fifty KOA.
We generally disagree a specifics and more broadly on what
President Trump is doing right now with the tariffs, but
so great to have Ross's perspective and appreciate you being
so generous with your time.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
In our last segment together, I really want to zero
in on a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Sounds to me.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Tell me if I'm wrong that you're saying that you're
okay with the status quo right now, You're okay with
these trade deficits overall, you think America is doing really well.
You mess with this and is anything substantial you would
do right now to address the trade deficits?
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Okay, So I think you just put words in my
mouth that were the exact opposite of all what I
said a few minutes ago, Right, I said that it
is I said Donald Trump has identified a legitimate problem
with other countries having tariffs and other non tariff barriers
against our products, and I'm glad he's trying to do
(29:29):
something about it. And if that's all he were trying
to do, I would probably reach your same conclusion, at
least at first, before we see how the game plays out. Hey,
let's give it a try and see how the game
plays out. But that's not really what he's trying to
do when he's imposing tariff levels that go way.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Beyond that and are going to cause a lot of pain.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
The other thing that he's doing by stopping and starting
and stopping and starting, is he is injecting so much
uncertainty into the economy that I personally think a recession
is coming even if you back, because who's gonna make
multi billion dollar plans based on a guy who can
change his mind five minutes later. So no, I don't
think everything's perfect, but I also don't think we're doing
(30:12):
we're doing badly. I would try to get these other
places to open markets. Frankly, I don't have the answers
on everything we could try to do to get them
to open markets. I would try it, but again, what
Donald Trump is doing is not primarily about that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Well, and I think that is a great way to
bring this full circle and wrap up this last segment
that we have about two or three minutes in, because
I disagree with your premise that this is a very
long term play for him, rather than leverage to kind
of reset the deals across the world that matter most now.
Neither of us can know for sure right We're gonna
(30:50):
find out together, but I do believe that's his play
right now. It'll turn out to be a brilliant one.
It will accomplish a lot, and he and the GOP
and the country will soar. But we'll find out together
on that. But Russ, my final question is, and I
know you you're a very thoughtful guy. You think a
lot about all of these issues. You're not just any
(31:12):
kind of Trump hater, But do you really think these
guys and girls are stupid in the administration? I mean,
because if you're right about how disastrous this is, it
would be a historically kind of biblically stupid, well biblically
strong word, it would be a historically stupid move, and
that has not been his history.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So I think it depends on the person.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I think there are you and I well know from
our overall experience during COVID society has experienced during COVID
that just because somebody is an expert or has a
fabulous degree from somewhere doesn't mean they're right, and definitely
doesn't mean they're telling you the truth. Now, I do
(31:57):
think there is something to be said for somebody who
studied something at a great school, and all that I do.
I have a little bit of faith and experts. But
I think Peter Navarro in particular, even though he has
a Harvard PhD, is a blight on this country, and
he is either incredibly ignorant of history and economic theory,
(32:20):
but not just the theory right the actual practice and
what's happened during trade wars, or he's lying to everybody.
A lot of the other people who are out there
talking about this stuff in a positive way, I just
think they're good soldiers. I think they either don't know
one way or another, or they don't care. It's my
job to support the president. I'll go say what he
wants me to say. So I think it's some combination
(32:41):
of all that.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
You really don't think Trump's doing this because of Peter Navarro, Right,
He's not going to bet as president or see in
the country on that.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
I mean, Mark, the whole bunch of them.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
But but isn't it when you talk about everybody with
the degrees and everything. Trump's degree is from the University
of real life, and he's had a lot of success personally,
a lot of success in his first term financially. So
what is it that would make you think that suddenly
he would do something as disastrous as you believe this
is going to be.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
So Peter Navarro is the symptom, not the cause.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Trump hired Peter Navarro and has Peter Navarro around him
because Navarro confirms what.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Trump has long believed.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Trump has long been an opponent of free trade, going
back at least forty years.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
So this is not new. This is why Dan, five.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Or six weeks ago, for the first time in my
fifteen years on radio, I went on my radio show
and told listeners. I have never been more convinced in
my entire life that the stock market is going down.
And I am selling stocks, and you know I used
to be a professional trader, right, so first time in
fifteen years I did that because I knew that Trump
is not doing this to even out trade balances. By
(33:49):
the way, to answer your previous question, I don't care
about trade deficits.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
There irrelevant.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Peter Navarro is Lee is confirmation bias for Trump eating
him down a.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Very dangerous path.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
And yes, Trump is pretty good at real estate, but
he doesn't know economics.
Speaker 4 (34:06):
And Ross's you know the music means we're done.
Speaker 1 (34:09):
But I think Trump there have been a lot of
examples of Trump doing things that really smart people thought
would fail and he then succeeded.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
And I know we both want this country to succeed,
and indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Thank you for being with us today. Love your show
nine to noon on eight to fifty k Awa. Please
do check out Ross's show if you don't already, look
forward to the next conversation.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
My friend, Thanks for having me, Thank you you take
care of Thank you Ryan, Thank you, Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.