The following Op-Ed is written and submitted by Paul Plante.
Yes, people, pitifully dumb, as in dumb as a box of rocks or ignorant as a stump, and here I am referring specifically to Karoline Claire Leavitt, born August 24, 1997, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025, in a Mediate article titled “Karoline Leavitt Claims China Will Pay Cost of Tariffs — Contradicting Trump, Who Said Walmart Would” by Alex Griffing on May 19th, 2025, as follows, to wit, and people, I remember learning about tariffs and the Great Depression back in seventh grade, I believe it was, so how on earth can this Karoline Claire Leavitt be this pitifully dumb:
Weijia Jiang, CBS News senior White House correspondent, pressed Trump Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday over conflicting statements coming from President Donald Trump and some of his top aides as to whether or not American companies will pay the price of his tariffs.
Leavitt’s answer appeared to be at odds with Trump’s recent claim that Walmart will need to “eat” some of the cost of his tariffs.
“President Trump and his top economic aides have repeatedly said that Americans will not pay the cost of tariffs.”
“In fact, last week, Lutnick said people have to drop the quote ‘silly arguments that consumers would pay the cost,’” Jiang began, referencing a recent statement from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
“But over the weekend, as you know, the president posted that Walmart ‘should eat the tariffs and not charge the value customer anything.”
“‘I’ll be watching and so will your customers.’”
“So does he acknowledge that if companies don’t absorb the full cost, Americans will have to pay?” Jiang asked.
“Well, first of all, the CEO of Walmart made those comments about the tariffs on an early earnings call where CEOs, I believe, are legally obligated to give the most dire warnings and forecasts to their investors and stakeholders,” Leavitt replied, downplaying the warning from the CEO of Walmart – one of the country’s largest retailers.
“The reality is, is the president has always maintained that Chinese producers will be absorbing the cost of these tariffs.”
“And that is why China was so quick to hustle to the negotiating table with the United States of America.”
“They need our markets, they need our consumers,” Leavitt concluded.
end quotes
HUH?
What ignorant drivel that is!
That is the most ignorant hogwash to be heard from a white house press secretary since Karine Jean-Pierre was in there for Biden spouting ignorant horsecrap.
And what is interesting with this Karoline Claire Leavitt is that she takes her ignorant ravings about China paying the tariffs on their goods seriously, apparently having it in her head that whatever nonsense a white house press secretary spouts, something she seems to have picked up from KJP, is the God’s honest truth and then some, and that takes us back in time to 1930, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) which, as we were taught somewhere along the line in grade school or high school, so why doesn’t Karoline Claire Leavitt know this, significantly impacted the US economy and global trade, primarily by raising tariffs and sparking retaliatory measures from other countries, which not surprisingly led to a substantial decrease in international trade, deepening the Great Depression and contributing to the loss of confidence in the US financial system.
Why is a white house press secretary so dangerously dumb and pitifully ignorant of this episode in our nation’s history which seems quite relevant to what is going today with Trump’s tariffs which are a tax on the American people, not the Chinese as Karoline Claire Leavitt would have us believe.
And how on earth can she not know that the tariffs are a tax on the American people?
It is high school level knowledge, afterall, not something you need a JD or Ph.D in PolySci to understand.
As to the basic high school education Karoline Claire Leavitt seems to have been either denied or deprived of in her formative years, or maybe she rejected it as useless knowledge, Smoot-Hawley raised average tariffs on imports by about 20%, and then many countries responded by raising their own tariffs on US goods, effectively creating a trade war, which, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, led to a significant drop in US exports to countries that retaliated.
Accordingly, global trade experienced a sharp decline, with one estimate showing a 65% drop according to the Corporate Finance Institute, which in turn reduced the demand for American goods, contributing, not surprisingly, to economic hardship and bank failures, particularly in agricultural regions.
Smoot-Hawley worsened the Great Depression, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, because US exports plummeted from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.5 billion in 1932 according to the Corporate Finance Institute, and farm exports declined by one-third from 1929 levels by 1933.
As it should be, or once was, the Smoot-Hawley Act is often cited as a cautionary tale about the dangers of protectionism and the importance of free trade.
So why on earth, then, is Karoline Claire Leavitt so pitifully dumb when it comes to understanding tariffs?
And if she is that dumb about tariffs, what else is she pitifully dumb about?
And my goodness, why is the media regurgitating her nonsense?
There is the real question of the day.
About the Author
What an over the top hit piece. You could have made your point with far fewer words. Your insulting and nasty comments in your writing style are a hallmark of the Democratic Party. Debates don’t exist anymore, only name calling and insults.
The situation with tariffs is a serious issue. Deep rooted problems need to be reversed and this is one tool. I expect some pain on many things before it settles down but the Disease needs to be cured. Left unaddressed, the outcome is much worse for our country.
I think the young lady does a good job. It’s politics so everyone exaggerates, just like your article.
Fishingman727, I positively loved your article above here, the flow of the words, the harmony of your expressions, and especially the exquisite use of the subjunctive, which you seem to have an innate knack at, where for our purposes, this in case the average reader finds the subject of the subjunctive, an art form really, outside of their ordinary frame of reference, which it may well be, being a tool of a skilled author such as yourself, afterall, the subjunctive is defined as being a grammatical mood, a type of verb form, that expresses a speaker’s attitude towards something, in this case, my analysis of white house press secretaries past and present, often indicating a hypothetical, uncertain, or emotional state, which you managed to pull off quite well, actually, and kudos to you, as a result, since it produced such an enjoyable and jocular read, given that the subjunctive as you have so skillfully employed it is used to express wishes, suggestions, opinions, doubts, or any state of unreality, such as you thinking I am a Democrat, when the reality is that I am an American citizen, instead, and there is a huge difference between the two!
For our at-home viewing audience, the subjunctive as employed by Fishingman727 above here is not a tense in the traditional sense (like past, present, or future).
Rather, it’s a mood, a category of verb forms that reflects a speaker’s perspective, and the subjunctive is used when something is not a fact, like my being a Democrat, but rather a possibility, a wish, a suggestion, or a hypothetical situation.
Have you ever thought of doing an autobiography on yourself?
If you do, please put me on the advance copy list.
Thank you and thank you for the levity you have provided us above here on an otherwise solemn holiday weekend.
And having indulged Fishingman727’s wild fantasies above here that I am a Democrat and his statement that “it’s politics so everyone exaggerates,” which is quite a statement as to what he expects from government and what it is that he will accept as his due, which is getting fed a load of bull excrement every day by a white house press secretary while being told that it is really the best prime rib he ever had, let’s go back to my question above of how on earth can white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt be so pitifully dumb when it comes to understanding tariffs, and how can she not know that the tariffs are a tax on the American people, when it is high school level knowledge, afterall, not something you need a JD or Ph.D in PolySci to understand.
As to the term “politics,” which term Fishingman727 uses to justify white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt, who he refers to as “the young lady,” feeding us a bunch of horse **** about who pays the tariffs, my Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines it as follows:
politics
1. The science or art of government or of the administration and management of public or state affairs
2. The affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments; also, the life, profession, or area of activity of such persons
3. The principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties or groups within a government
4. The acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority, or advantage
5. Political sentiments or opinions
end quotes
So perhaps Fishingman727 can enlighten us as to which he was referring to when he said “It’s politics so everyone exaggerates,” which is to say, you can’t trust anyone in politics, especially white house press secretaries, which is quite a statement as to how far we have descended as a nation, when we are so very willing to accept horse crap from a white house press secretary6 as our due.
And going back to Fishingman727’s statement above that white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt was exaggerating when she said that China would be paying the tariffs on their goods imposed by America, exaggeration means making something seem bigger, better, or worse than it actually is, and it is about overstating or overemphasizing a point or situation.
Exaggeration is the act of representing something as more extreme or dramatic than it is, either intentionally or unintentionally, and it can be used for various reasons, such as to create a strong impression or evoke strong feelings or to mislead or deceive others.
And if we consider his comment in the light of exaggeration by white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt on the China tariffs being intended to mislead and/or deceive others, they being the gullible in America who think white house press secretaries tell the truth, or those in America who don’t mind the fact that in America, white house press secretaries cannot be trusted to even come close to the truth, because they are playing at politics, then yes, she is exaggerating.
But why?
Why is she exaggerating things in order to mislead or deceive us?
And given that this is such a basic topic, tariffs in America, which is the stuff of high school or grade school history, why would she have the impression that all of us are so stupid that we wouldn’t know she was manipulating us?
And speaking of this being a high school subject that does not require a Ph.D. in economics to understand, or a Harvard JD, the First Party System is a model of American politics used in history and political science to periodize the political party system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824, that period right after the Constitution was ratified and this country was formed as a federal Republic, and here, I would love to have the opportunity to question white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt as to whether in her life she has ever heard any of this being discussed.
The First Party System in America featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states with the Federalist Party, created largely by Alexander Hamilton vying for power against the rival Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and usually called at the time the “Republican Party.”
Both parties originated in national politics, but soon expanded their efforts to gain supporters and voters in every state, with the Federalists appealing to the business community, while the Republicans appealed to the planters and farmers, and by 1796, politics in every state was nearly monopolized by the two parties, with party newspapers and caucuses becoming especially effective tools to mobilize voters.
The Federalists promoted the financial system of Treasury Secretary Hamilton, which emphasized federal assumption of state debts, a tariff to pay off those debts, a national bank to facilitate financing, and encouragement of banking and manufacturing.
The Republicans, based in the plantation South, opposed a strong executive power, were hostile to a standing army and navy, demanded a strict reading of the Constitutional powers of the federal government, and strongly opposed the Hamilton financial program, which is to say, the tariffs.
And if we go forward in time from there to 1844, what we find is that the “tariff question” was a major issue in the US presidential election between James K. Polk and Henry Clay, and my goodness, people, how can white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt not know any of that?
Going back to 1844, the Democratic Party, supporting Polk, generally favored lower tariffs, while the Whig Party, supporting Clay, generally favored higher tariffs, and not surprisingly, just as is supposed to be the case again today, the tariff issue in 1844 was significant because tariffs were a major source of federal revenue and also had a significant impact on the economy, particularly in the North and South.
As anyone who bothered to read the Federalist Papers would know, tariffs, just like now, were a tax on imported goods, and they were a primary source of revenue for the federal government in the 19th century, while also having a protective function that was of benefit to Northern manufacturing industries while increasing costs for Southern agricultural exporters.
Northern industrialists generally supported tariffs to protect their businesses from foreign competition, while Southern planters often opposed tariffs because they increased the cost of imported goods and made it harder to export their agricultural products.
The tariff question had a significant impact on the economy and political landscape of the time, and it continued to be a contentious issue in the years leading up to the Civil War.
And if we drop back to July 26, 1788 and the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York, we find as follows wi8th respect to tariffs, also known then as the “impost,” to wit:
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.
end quotes
And that was two hundred thirty-seven (237) years ago, so certainly, this subject of tariffs has been with us for some long time now, and if we got a basic high school education, we all should be well aware of that fact.
So why isn’t white house press secretary Karoline Claire Leavitt?
A question for our times.
So you believe that China and other countries should put tariffs on us restrict our products to be exported to their countries is ok ? I don’t ! Your reference to previous history examples are just that Previous. Its not a tax on American s Its a needed economic adjusting tool . She may not be 100 percent accurate as no Press Secretary is But she is far better than what was there .
Hi, Bob!
So nice to see you, dude!
And here I was, saying how much I like the Cape Charles Mirror as it is about the only place left here in America where one can find some real robust Webster-Haynes type of debate among American citizens like you are not going to find anywhere on MSNBC and that is an indisputable fact, and here you are to prove my point.
In response to your question or statement that I believe that China and other countries should put tariffs on us restrict our products to be exported to their countries is ok, I actually never said anything like that at all, to be quite truthful, with you, as you deserve.
Bad enough you’re getting fed a load of bullcrap by the white house press secretary without me adding to it, n’est-ce pas?
What products of ours has China been restricting with tariffs?
According to my research, the top US exports to China include agricultural products like soybeans and corn, followed by machinery, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals while other significant exports include oil and gas, aircraft parts, and electronic components.
As to my reference to previous history examples, they are exactly that – previous examples of history, and if we ask AI, which is way smarter than any human being living or dead, who paid the price of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the answer we get back is as follows:
The importing company pays tariffs on imported goods, which are then often passed on to the consumer through higher prices.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, also known as the United States Tariff Act of 1930, raised tariffs on imported goods, and these tariffs were paid by the importers.
And here we are back to either high school or grade school, Bob, perhaps on a day you were absent, to wit: tariffs are essentially a tax on imported goods, imposed by the government, and the importing company is responsible for paying the tariff to the government.
As to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, while it was intended to protect domestic industries, it also had a significant negative impact on international trade, leading to retaliatory tariffs from other countries and exacerbating the Great Depression.
That is fact and history, Bob.
And with regard to your statement that “Its not a tax on American s Its a needed economic adjusting tool.” that’s hogwash and balderdash all rolled up into one.
While tariffs are levied on imported goods, which means goods coming from someplace like China to the US after someone here has ordered the goods from China and paid for them, the burden of the tariff, or tax, which is exactly what it always has been since before the US Constitution was ratified, often falls on U.S. taxpayers, including consumers and businesses.
More high school: tariffs raise the price of imported goods, which can be passed on to consumers, leading to higher costs for everyday purchases, because tariffs are imposed by the U.S. government on imported goods, meaning the importer (usually a business) is initially responsible for paying the tariff to the government, which increase the cost of the imported goods for the importer, who may then raise prices to cover the extra cost, so that consumers then experience higher prices for the imported goods, effectively bearing the cost of the tariff or tax, and that is exacerbated by the fact that domestic businesses that rely on imported goods for production may also face higher costs due to tariffs, potentially leading to higher prices for their products or even reduced production.
As the history you disregard clearly shows, tariffs can lead to a variety of economic effects, including higher prices, reduced trade, and potentially even job losses in some sectors, as was the case with Smoot-Hawley during the Great Depression, which is more high school stuff.
And how on earth did you miss it, Bob?
Did you drop out of sixth grade when you turned sixteen?
Or what?
What I personally like about the Cape Charles Mirror is that it is about the only place in America left today where one can find real Americans engaging in robust Webster-Haynes types of debates on issues of interest in our lives such as these tariffs, or imposts as they once were called, as is the case in here with Fishingman727 @ May 25, 2025 at 12:04 pm, who has called my essay above here “an over the top hit piece,” which as an American citizen, of course, he has every right to do so, since all he is doing is stating an opinion, which is not a fact.
And while in the opinion of Fishingman727 I could have made my point with far fewer words, the fact of the matter was and is that in my opinion, which counts for as much as that of Fishingman727, I needed all the words that I did use, which is why I used them.
Then for some as of yet unexplained reason, Fishingman727 goes spiraling off into outer space with his comment that “insulting and nasty comments” in my writing style are a “hallmark of the Democratic Party.”
He went spiraling off into outer space because there were no “insulting and nasty comments” in my writing style above.
Not being a member of the Democratic Party, and having absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Democratic Party, there is no sane or rational reason why I would adopt their political tactics as my own/
Why would I debase myself by doing so?
And then we come to Fishingman727 telling us that in America today, debates don’t exist anymore, only name calling and insults, and that is probably because we now have so many people in America like Karoline Claire Leavitt, born August 24, 1997, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025 who are frankly too dumb to debate anything, and so must resort to name-calling and insults, which if one wants to be a white house spokesperson, those are the qualities on must possess as we see in the FOX News article titled “Trump supporters, Gold Star families flood Harris’ X account after Arlington attack: admin ‘killed my son’ – ‘You should be ashamed and embarrassed [about] your lack of empathy and decency as a human being,’ one Gold Star said in a message to Harris” by Emma Colton Fox News published September 1, 2024, where we had the full-throated version of Karoline Claire Leavitt unleashed as follows, to wit:
Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt added on X that “Kamala’s stupidity led to one of the most embarrassing events in American history and 13 brave US soldiers being killed.”
“Kamala Harris bragged about being the last person in the room with Joe Biden when they decided on their terrible Afghanistan withdrawal plan,” Leavitt posted.
“She has never said their names.”
“She has never reached out to their families.”
“For this alone, Kamala does not deserve to be elected.”
“Kamala has already proven that she would be a dangerously incompetent Commander in Chief.”
end quotes
Of course, given that that was all true, maybe we can say that Karoline Claire Leavitt wasn’t really being nasty and insulting at all – it’s just politics.
And with that out of the way, when we return, it will be to hear Fishingman72 say, “The situation with tariffs is a serious issue,” which is why I bothered to pen my essay on the subject in the first place, so stay tuned, for more is yet to come.
So, with respect to robust Webster-Haynes type of debate in here, above here we have Bob @ May 26, 2025 at 12:29 pm telling us that Trump’s tariffs are not a tax on Americans, rather, in his opinion, they are a needed economic adjusting tool, which indeed is an interesting perspective on the subject of tariffs, or imposts. and then we have Fishingman727 @ May 25, 2025 at 12:04 pm telling us, after he tells us debates don’t exist anymore, only name calling and insults, the debatable proposition that the situation with tariffs is a serious issue because deep rooted problems need to be reversed and this is one tool, and he expects some pain on many things before it settles down but the Disease needs to be cured, because in his opinion, if left unaddressed, the outcome is much worse for our country.
And here, I have to say that I am not at all sure of what either of them is talking about.
Tariffs are a needed economic adjusting tool?
How so?
What exactly is it that is being adjusted?
For the record, the United States today is what it is called a service economy, meaning that a large portion of its economic activity and employment are concentrated in the service sector, and that is by choice going back to the 1970’s or 80’s, when we as a nation decided that we did not want dirty, polluting smokestack industries here in this country, and if we were going to be a service economy, those in the world we wanted to make money off of by “servicing” them needed to have money in the first place, so we sent them our factories to give them jobs so they would have the money to come here and go to Disneyland and make our economy richer.
I don’t know where Bob and Fishingman727 have been over the last fifty years or so, but I’ve been here, and I clearly recall that this shift from a manufacturing-based economy like we had right after WWII to one dominated by services as is the case today, where consumerism is what puts the money into our economy, and consumerism needs cheap overseas goods to work properly, has been occurring for decades, with industries like healthcare, education, and finance playing a major role, so that by 2005, over 81 million Americans were employed in the service sector, contributing about 80% of the nation’s GDP.
So exactly what are tariffs going to do to that equation?
And why are we punishing the Chinese for economic decisions we made in this country?
The Chinese did not steal our jobs.
We gave our jobs to the Chinese.
The US government’s decision to relocate “smokestack industries” overseas was primarily driven by economic factors, including labor costs, environmental regulations, and the desire for increased international competitiveness, and this has never been any kind of secret, this shift has been happening for decades, as countries like the US have moved from manufacturing to higher-value industries like technology and services.
Smokestack industries (those heavily reliant on manufacturing and heavy industry) are often labor-intensive and subject to stricter environmental regulations in developed countries like the US.
Relocating these industries to developing countries with lower labor costs and sometimes weaker environmental regulations can lead to cost savings for businesses in America which is why they were located off-shore in the first place.
On the other hand, by focusing on high-value, knowledge-based industries, the US believes it can improve its international competitiveness and maintain its economic growth.
So, again, what are tariffs going to do to that equation?
Besides upend it?
As if often the case here in the Cape Charles Mirror, this thread has turned out to be a conversation or discussion on several different levels, starting with me musing about why we are stuck with white house press secretaries who seem so pitifully dumb, uninformed and totally ignorant of our history as a nation and as a people, so they just make up whatever crap comes into their heads, like Karoline Claire Leavitt, born August 24, 1997, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025, in a Mediate article titled “Karoline Leavitt Claims China Will Pay Cost of Tariffs — Contradicting Trump, Who Said Walmart Would” by Alex Griffing on May 19th, 2025, and moving from there to the subject of tariffs themselves being a tax on the importing nation, not a tax on the exporting nation, and from there to the premise of Bob @ May 26, 2025 at 12:29 pm that Trump’s tariffs are not a tax on Americans, rather, in his opinion, they are a needed economic adjusting tool, and Fishingman727 @ May 25, 2025 at 12:04 pm telling us, after he tells us debates don’t exist anymore, only name calling and insults, the debatable proposition that the situation with tariffs is a serious issue because deep rooted problems need to be reversed and this is one tool, and he expects some pain on many things before it settles down but the Disease needs to be cured, because in his opinion, if left unaddressed, the outcome is much worse for our country.
As to tariffs versus taxes, let us go back to our early history and ask this question, to wit: WAS THE STAMP ACT A TARIFF?
And the answer we get back is that no, the Stamp Act was not a tariff.
While both the Stamp Act and tariffs were forms of taxation, they differed in how they were applied and what they taxed.
The Stamp Act was a direct tax on various documents and paper goods within the colonies, while tariffs are taxes on imported goods.
And that takes us to another cause of the American Revolution where we find that the tax on tea imposed by Britain on the American colonies, particularly the three pence per pound tax in the Tea Act of 1773, was a form of tariff.
As I have been saying in here, regardless of what time period we are talking about, a tariff by definition is a tax imposed on goods imported into a country, and in this case, the British tax on tea was levied on the tea imported into the American colonies from Great Britain.
As we once learned in grade school and high school, the Tea Act itself was a complex measure aimed at aiding the financially struggling East India Company, and while it allowed the company to sell tea directly to the colonies without duties in England, it also maintained the existing three pence per pound tax, and this tax, coupled with other grievances about British rule, fueled colonial opposition and ultimately led to events like the Boston Tea Party, and the American Revolution, and our creation as a nation.
So why on earth do we find ourselves saddled with apparent simpletons in the white house press office who are so ignorant of these important details from our nation’s history?
Because this stuff isn’t taught anymore?
Or is it because people in America today simply prefer a white house spokesperson who doesn’t have a clue as to what they are on about?
Going back to at least the Korean war back in the 1950’s and the blather about “the boys will be home by Christmas,” and then bullcrap in the 1960’s about the “light at the end of the tunnel,” and moving forward to today where we have Karoline Claire Leavitt, born August 24, 1997, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025 telling us in a Mediate article titled “Karoline Leavitt Claims China Will Pay Cost of Tariffs — Contradicting Trump, Who Said Walmart Would” by Alex Griffing on May 19th, 2025, “The reality is, is the president has always maintained that Chinese producers will be absorbing the cost of these tariffs,” if one is wise, one will realize that the very last place one is going to find either truth or fact is in a white house briefing, which takes us to a Reuters article titled “Tariff gloom weighs on US manufacturing; delivery times lengthening” by Lucia Mutikani on June 2, 2025, where we have the lie put to the assertion of Karoline Claire Leavitt that “The reality is, is the president has always maintained that Chinese producers will be absorbing the cost of these tariffs,” as follows:
WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) – U.S. manufacturing contracted for a third straight month in May and suppliers took the longest time in nearly three years to deliver inputs amid tariffs, potentially signaling looming shortages of some goods.
President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policy again dominated commentary from manufacturers in the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) survey published on Monday, and suppliers were passing on the import duties to customers.
That challenges the Trump administration’s narrative that China and other trade partners paid the tariffs.
end quotes
And seriously, people, who in their right mind would believe otherwise?
But let us not stop there, for the tariff chaos that we won’t hear Trump’s “pretty face” Karoline Claire Leavitt telling us about, to wit:
The on-again and of-again tariffs were described by some transportation equipment manufacturers as having “wreaked havoc on suppliers’ ability to react and remain profitable,” while makers of computer and electronic products viewed the duties and government spending cuts as “raising hell with businesses.”
“The outlook for the manufacturing sector looks downbeat, particularly with the initial surge in demand from front-loading now behind us,” said Matthew Martin, senior economist at Oxford Economics.
“Businesses are contending with higher input costs, supply disruptions, and domestic and foreign customers wary of committing to new orders.”
end quotes
And again, outside of those locked in the unreality of the Washington white house, who can be surprised that Trump is sowing chaos with his may be today-maybe tomarrow tariffs, which takes us back to mReuters, as follows:
The survey suggested manufacturing, which is heavily reliant on imported raw materials, had not benefited from the de-escalation in trade tensions between the White House and China.
Economists say the chaotic manner in which the import duties are being implemented is making it difficult for businesses to plan ahead, sentiments echoed by manufacturers.
Some manufacturers of transportation equipment also noted that while “vehicle manufacturers have already rolled price increases into their products to protect their bottom lines,” they had “not been as cooperative with their supply bases.”
They added “this has resulted in a high occurrence of suppliers falling into financial distress.”
Makers of electrical equipment, appliances and components said “the administration’s tariffs alone have created supply chain disruptions rivaling that of COVID-19.”
end quotes
And there, people, is quite an accomplishment, although I seriously doubt we will hear white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt bragging it up any time soon, and if pressed, she would likely deny it was happening, which again takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
Manufacturers of paper products warned the “unresolved trade deal with China will result in empty shelves at retailers for many do-it-yourself and professional goods.”
Machinery manufacturers worried about China’s export restrictions on rare minerals.
Makers of fabricated metal products said their “Asia customers are requesting delayed shipments” because of tariffs.
end quotes
And here we come to what puts the big lie to the assertion of Karoline Claire Leavitt that the ones like China sending us the goods would be paying the tariffs, as opposed to those in this country importing them, to wit:
Suppliers are passing on the tariffs to customers.
Chemical products manufacturers reported that “the position being communicated is that the supplier considers it a tax, and taxes always get passed through to the customer,” adding “very few are absorbing any portion of the tariffs.”
“Pressure on manufacturers to pass on their costs further up the supply chain will mount as inventories dwindle, as they eventually will have to restock at much higher prices,” said Oliver Allen, senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
Production at factories remained subdued, while new orders barely saw an improvement.
The ISM survey’s forward-looking new orders sub-index inched up to 47.6 from 47.2 in April.
Factories continued to shed jobs.
The ISM Business Survey Committee Chair Susan Spence said comments from respondents reflected an acceleration of head-count reductions due to uncertain near- to mid-term demand.
“In the context of on-again, off-again tariff policy, most businesses are left sitting on their hands as they await any sign of more-persistent clarity,” said Shannon Grein, an economist at Wells Fargo.
end quotes
And that, folks, is the news you didn’t hear from white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt, and likely won’t!
And staying with what it is we haven’t been hearing from white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt on the serious subject of Trump’s tariffs, we first come to an AFP article titled “US private sector hiring sharply slows, drawing Trump ire” on 4 June 2025, where we have as follows. to wit:
For now, US services sector activity shrank in May for the first time since mid-2024 too, according to the Institute for Supply Management, as Trump’s tariffs fueled prices and uncertainty.
Since returning to the presidency, Trump has slapped a 10 percent tariff on most trading partners, alongside higher rates on dozens of economies, including the European Union, that have since been put on pause until early July.
He has also taken special aim at China with tit-for-tat levies between Washington and Beijing reaching three-figures before both sides reached a temporary deal to lower levels last month.
But the seesawing of Trump’s trade policies has snarled supply chains, roiled financial markets and weighed on consumer sentiment.
“Manufacturing employment is suffering from higher input costs and disruptions to supply chains.”
“At least one vehicle producer was forced to idle production during the first half of May; that is reminiscent of the pandemic,” warned KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk in a recent note.
end quotes
Of course, white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt can say that that is just a lot of anti-Trump hoo-hah, which takes us to a CNBC article titled “Trump says ‘extremely hard’ to make a deal with China’s Xi as trade stalemate fuels calls for leaders to talk” by Anniek Bao and Evelyn Cheng on June 4, 2025, to wit:
U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that it was “extremely hard” to make a deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, at a time when the White House has been suggesting the two leaders could talk this week amid rising trade tensions.
Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury secretary, said Thursday stateside that trade talks were “a bit stalled,” and the two countries’ leaders would likely need to weigh in.
end quotes
A bit of a whiff of panic wafting off of Trump’s treasury secretary there, which moves us right along to a Reuters article titled “Canada prepares reprisals over U.S. metals tariffs, EU reports progress in talks” by David Ljunggren, Andrea Shalal and Julia Payne on June 4, 2025, where we see the peace between the United States and Canada which has existed for over a century, since the War of 1812, when the Treaty of Ghent, signed in 1814, ended the conflict and returned to the status quo ante bellum, and since then, the two nations have established a strong partnership, built on shared geography, economic cooperation, and security cooperation, being threatened, to wit:
Trump has made charging U.S. importers tariffs on goods from foreign countries the central policy of his trade wars, which have severely disrupted global trade flows and roiled financial markets.
The Republican president has long been angered by the massive federal trade deficit, saying it was emblematic of how trading partners “take advantage” of the U.S.
He sees tariffs as a tool to bring more manufacturing – and the jobs that go with that – back to the United States.
However, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday that U.S. economic output will fall as a result of Trump’s new tariffs on foreign goods that were in place as of May 13.
end quotes
And that bit about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office saying on Wednesday that U.S. economic output will fall as a result of Trump’s new tariffs on foreign goods that were in place as of May 13 takes us to a Reuters article titled “US services sector contracts in May; businesses face higher prices” by Lucia Mutikani on June 4, 2025 for this bi8t of reality, to wit:
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) – The U.S. services sector contracted for the first time in nearly a year in May while businesses paid higher prices for inputs, a reminder that the economy remains in danger of experiencing a period of very slow growth and high inflation.
The survey from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) on Wednesday showed uncertainty was the dominant theme among businesses as they tried to navigate President Donald Trump’s constantly shifting trade policy.
The whiplash from the tariffs that Trump has announced, paused, and imposed has left most businesses in limbo and struggling to plan ahead, to the detriment of the economy.
The Trump administration has given U.S. trading partners until Wednesday to make their “best offers” to avoid other punishing import levies from taking effect in early July.
“Until there is clarity on the trading environment, it appears that the business sector will remain wary of putting money to work,” said James Knightley, chief international economist at ING.
The ISM on Monday reported that manufacturing contracted for a third straight month in May, with suppliers taking the longest time in nearly three years to deliver inputs amid tariffs.
Businesses in the construction industry said “tariff variability has thrown residential construction supply chains into chaos,” adding that “major heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment manufacturers are passing on their cost increases due to higher refrigerant and steel commodity prices.”
Businesses are also seeking to pass on tariffs, which are a tax, to consumers.
That effort was corroborated by a report from the New York Federal Reserve showing the majority of businesses in its district said they had passed on at least some of the tariffs in the form of higher prices in May.
That situation was reinforced by a surge in the survey’s measure of prices paid for services inputs to 68.7, the highest level since November 2022, from 65.1 in April.
end quotes
Yes, people, tariffs are indeed a tax that falls upon the people of America, which takes us to yet another Reuters article titled “US economic activity declines as tariffs pressure prices, Fed says” by Ann Saphir on June 4, 2025, where we have as follows to consider:
June 4 (Reuters) – U.S. economic activity has declined and higher tariff rates have put upward pressure on costs and prices in the weeks since Federal Reserve policymakers last met to set interest rates, the U.S. central bank said on Wednesday in its latest snapshot of the nation’s economy.
In January, all 12 Fed districts reported economic growth; the latest report showed just three did, while half reported economic declines.
Tariffs remained a rising concern, along with uncertainty, impacting in particular prices but also expectations for growth.
“In some cases, firms explicitly included a separate tariff line for items or contingencies in their price quotes and contracts,” said the San Francisco Fed, where economic activity was reported to have slowed.
“One contact observed that price increases that had been implemented in anticipation of certain tariffs were not rolled back once those tariffs were removed.”
The Cleveland Fed reported consumer spending had flattened out, with contacts saying it was hard to forecast demand because of trade policy uncertainty.
end quotes
And moving right along, we come to a Reuters article titled “NY Fed survey: Last month most firms passed on some of tariff surge” by Michael S. Derby on June 4, 2025, where we have this news on the subject of the Trump tariffs, to wit:
NEW YORK, June 4 – The majority of businesses in the New York Federal Reserve’s district said they passed on at least some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs in the form of higher prices last month, as firms flagged considerable confusion and uncertainty in navigating the surge in import taxes, a report from the bank released on Wednesday said.
As of early May, “most businesses passed on at least some of the higher tariffs to their customers, with nearly a third of manufacturers and about 45% of service firms fully passing along all tariff-induced cost increases by raising their prices,” the New York Fed report said.
Some three quarters of both types of firms passed along at least some form of tariff-related price increases.
The latest round of tariffs has brought a doubling of aluminum and steel import taxes.
At the time of the survey, factory firms estimated that their tariff level was 35% while service firms said it was 26%.
The manufacturing firms said the price increase in their tariffed goods was 20% while service firms reported a 15% price increase for customers.
The survey also found “a significant share of businesses” said they had increased prices on goods and services not affected by tariffs.
Trump and White House officials have argued that foreigners pay tariffs, a contention rejected by most economists.
The New York Fed survey also showed respondents were very unsure how things would play out.
“Businesses expressed considerable uncertainty about the future path of tariffs,” the New York Fed said.
At the same time, factory and service firms struggled to understand what level of tariffs were affecting them, and “many businesses expressed difficulty making decisions and determining the appropriate pricing strategies under such heightened uncertainty.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, along with everything else a person in business must face, let’s make things more interesting by injecting massive chaos into the picture, and for right now, folks, that is the news!
But stay tuned, for this story has legs and won’t quit running, and we will be back with more.
So, continuing on in here with what it is we can be sure of not hearing anything about from white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt on the serious subject of the fall-out and ramifications of Trump’s tariffs, we have as follows on that very subject from a Rigzone article titled “Oil Rises as Traders See Trump-Xi Call as Sign of Easing Tension” by Bloomberg, Julia Fanzeres and Mia Gindis on June 05, 2025, to wit:
“A meeting between Xi and Trump is supportive of risk assets and crude oil as it raises the prospect of progress on tariff negotiations,” said Rebecca Babin, a senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth Group.
“Tariff uncertainty has been a key overhang for crude markets, with unresolved tensions prompting downward revisions to demand forecasts.”
Still, animosity between the world’s two largest economies is adding to unease about the US shale patch.
China avoided buying American crude for a second straight month, the longest run since the pandemic, a negative for American producers that partly depend on overseas demand.
end quotes
Yes, people, when a nation like the US decides, as Trump has done, to adopt an isolationist stance, as was the case following the Great War (WWI) when public sentiment in the US shifted towards isolationism, fueled by disillusionment with the war and a desire to avoid future international entanglements, which isolationist stance the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 forced the US to abandon and to instead, engage in World War II, so that following the war, the US became a global leader, participating in international organizations like the United Nations and NATO, there is a price to pay, as we are finding out all over again, which takes us to a Reuters article titled “Weekly jobless claims hit seven-month high; imports post record decline” by Lucia Mutikani on June 5, 2025, where we see the impact of Trump’s tariff policy on job creation or perhaps more appropriately, job destruction in America, to wit:
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) – The number of Americans filing new applications for unemployment benefits increased to a seven-month high last week, pointing to softening labor market conditions amid mounting economic headwinds from tariffs.
The report from the Labor Department on Thursday also continued to show workers losing their jobs having a tough time landing new opportunities as uncertainty caused by President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policy leaves employers reluctant to increase headcount.
end quotes
Not surprisingly, businesses do not like mutability (liability or tendency to change) in public policy, which makes it difficult to impossible to plan ahead, something I don’t think Trump has ever had to think about or worry about, which subject takes us to a Reuters article titled Fed policymakers flag inflation concerns, a view that argues against rate cuts” by Ann Saphir and Michael S. Derby on June 5, 2025, where we have this to consider:
June 5 (Reuters) – A pair of Federal Reserve policymakers signaled on Thursday that they believe higher inflation is for now a more pressing risk than a slowing labor market, a view that implies support for keeping monetary policy on hold for longer.
“I see greater upside risks to inflation at this juncture and potential downside risks to employment and output growth down the road, and this leads me to continue to support maintaining the FOMC’s policy rate at its current setting if upside risks to inflation remain,” Fed Governor Adriana Kugler told the Economic Club of New York on Thursday.
Tariffs are already pushing up on prices, she said, and while there are some signs the economy is cooling it is “not yet a significant slowdown.”
Speaking a little later in the day, Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid expressed optimism that the economy will skirt recession as it has in the recent past.
While the extent of the tariffs’ drag on growth and employment is unclear, he too showed he is more worried about the imminent impact on inflation.
“The tariffs are likely to push up prices” by an unknown amount in coming months, Schmid said, and the effect “likely will not be fully apparent for some time.”
end quotes
And in a separate Reuters article titled “Fed’s Schmid: uncomfortable with looking through tariff-driven price push” on June 5, 2025, we have him saying further on the subject of tariff inflation, as follows:
June 5 (Reuters) – Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Jeff Schmid on Thursday expressed concern that tariffs could rekindle inflation, saying upward price pressure could be apparent in coming months but not fully known for much longer.
“While theory might suggest that monetary policy should look through a one-time increase in prices, I would be uncomfortable staking the Fed’s reputation and credibility on theory,” Schmid said in remarks prepared for delivery to a banking conference hosted at his regional Fed bank’s headquarters.
end quotes
Wise words there, alright, which takes us to a Reuters story titled “US aluminium premiums hit record levels after tariffs take effect” on June 5, 2025, to wit:
LONDON, June 5 (Reuters) – Premiums for consumers buying aluminium on the physical market in the United States hit a record 60 cents a lb or $1,323 a metric ton on Thursday after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed higher tariffs on U.S. imports of the metal.
The tariffs doubled to 50% on Wednesday.
The U.S. Midwest duty-paid premium has gained nearly 190% since Trump was elected in November for his second term as president.
The U.S. is heavily reliant on aluminium imports, with the vast majority from Canada.
end quotes
And if white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt thinks that there will be no adverse impacts on the US economy, she is delusional, which takes us to a Reuters article titled “US worker productivity slumps in first quarter” on June 5, 2025, where we see some hints of possible stagflation setting in, to wit:
WASHINGTON, June 5 (Reuters) – U.S. worker productivity dropped at a faster pace than initially thought in the first quarter, driving labor costs sharply higher at a time when businesses are already facing rising costs from tariffs on imported goods.
Nonfarm productivity, which measures hourly output per worker, decreased at a 1.5% annualized rate last quarter, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Thursday.
That was revised down from the previously reported 0.8% pace of decline and marked the first drop since the second quarter of 2022.
Corporate profits dropped in the first quarter and could come under pressure as President Donald Trump’s tariffs produce economic uncertainty that economists have warned would hamper consumer and business spending.
Airlines, retailers and motor vehicle manufacturers are among the companies to have either withdrawn or refrained from giving financial guidance for 2025, citing the uncertainty caused by the on-again, off-again nature of some of the duties.
Unit labor costs – the price of labor per single unit of output – shot up at a 6.6% rate in the first quarter.
They were revised up from the previously reported 5.7% growth pace.
Labor costs increased at a 1.9% rate from a year ago, upgraded from the previously reported 1.3% pace.
end quotes
And there, folks, is more of the news you didn’t hear from white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt, and likely won’t, but again, stay tuned, and we’ll be back with more!
And picking up where we left off in here, as an older American, I have to wonder if white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt and Trump treasury secretary Scott Bessent, a man very full of himself, have ever heard the expression or phrase “taxation without representation will not stand,” this with respect to Trump’s tariffs, which are a tax imposed on the American people without representation, because Trump does not “represent” the American people, and without their consent.
Here in America, or at least it once was that way, the phrase “No taxation without representation” encapsulates a core principle of democratic governance, asserting that those who are subjected to taxation should have a voice in the process of levying those taxes, typically through elected representatives.
Donald Trump is not an elected representative.
This idea, which fueled the American Revolution, argues that it is unjust and tyrannical to impose taxes on a population that lacks representation in the body that creates those taxes, because the fundamental idea is that political legitimacy for taxation stems from the consent of the governed, so that if a group of people is taxed without having any say in the matter, it’s seen as a violation of their rights.
And that brings us to a Reuters article titled “US customs duties top $100 billion for first time in a fiscal year” by David Lawder on July 11, 2025, where we have as follows on the subject of Trump’s unilaterally imposed tariff taxes on the American people, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) – U.S. customs duty collections surged again in June as President Donald Trump’s tariffs gained steam, topping $100 billion for the first time during a fiscal year and helping to produce a surprise $27 billion budget surplus for the month, the Treasury Department reported on Friday.
The budget data showed that tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue contributor for the federal government, with customs duties in June hitting new records, quadrupling to $27.2 billion on a gross basis and $26.6 billion on a net basis after refunds.
end quotes
And let’s rephrase that as the budget data show that Trump’s tariff taxes on the American people are starting to build into a significant revenue contributor for the federal government, with $27.2 billion on a gross basis and $26.6 billion on a net basis after refunds being removed from otherwise productive uses in the economy by being diverted into the coffers of the US treasury instead, which under this administration seems to think it is a profit-making business instead of a governmental function.
Going back to Reuters, it continues, as follows:
The budget results are likely to reinforce Trump’s view of tariffs as a lucrative revenue source and as a hammer to enforce non-trade foreign policy.
end quotes
They are indeed a lucrative revenue source for Trump because unless they change their ways and stop consuming, Trump’s tariff taxes cannot be avoided, which takes us back to Reuters for more, to wit:
He said on Tuesday that “the big money” would start to flow in after he imposes higher “reciprocal” tariffs on U.S. trading partners on August 1.
end quotes
With the “big money” flowing out of the pockets of the American people and into the pockets of Trump’s federal government.
Going back to Reuters, we have more as follows:
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X that the results show the U.S. “reaping the rewards” from Trump’s tariff agenda.
“As President Trump works hard to take back our nation’s economic sovereignty, today’s Monthly Treasury Statement is demonstrating record customs duties – and with no inflation!” Bessent said.
end quotes
And as we have come to expect from federal government officials who these days seem to have a great deal of trouble separating fact from political fiction, Bessent is blowing smoke when he says there is no inflation as we see from this Reuters article titled “US prices for China-made goods on Amazon rise faster than inflation, analysis shows, as tariffs bite” by Siddharth Cavale on June 30, 2025, to wit:
NEW YORK, June 30 (Reuters) – Prices for goods made in China and sold on Amazon.com have been rising faster than overall inflation, according to an analysis of 1,400 different products conducted exclusively for Reuters by the analytics firm DataWeave, a sign that tariffs are starting to hit American consumers.
The analysis shows that price increases for those goods accelerated beginning in May, a signal U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs are starting to filter through to consumers.
The median price of a basket of more than 1,400 products made in China and sold on Amazon.com to U.S. buyers has gone up by 2.6% between January and mid-June, outpacing the latest U.S. inflation rate for core goods, which runs only through May.
The goods rising at the fastest rate include school and office supplies, electronic items such as printers and shredders, blank media items like CDs and DVDs, and home goods such as furnishings and cookware.
For example, a Hamilton Beach electric kettle climbed to a median $73.21 from $49.99, while the price of a GreenPan frying pan more than doubled to $31.99.
Through April, inflation across that product group remained modest.
Prices increased more sharply in May and accelerated into June, particularly in the Home & Furniture and Electronics categories, which showed a median increase of 3.5% and 3.1%, respectively, over the time frame of the study.
Numerous consumer companies have warned of tariff-led price hikes, including the largest U.S. retailer Walmart.
Department store chain Macy’s said it was selectively raising prices to offset tariffs.
Nike, which recently started selling on Amazon after a six-year break, said it would raise prices across various products starting June 1.
Trump has defended tariffs as necessary to rebalance global trade and boost U.S. manufacturing output.
end quotes
So much for what Bessent knows about anything to do with the economy and be sure to take what that dude says with a large grain of salt, but stay tuned, for there is more, much more, on this subject of Trump’s tariff taxes on the American people, so stay tuned.
So, with the thought in mind from that Reuters above here titled “US customs duties top $100 billion for first time in a fiscal year” by David Lawder on July 11, 2025 that Trump is defending his tariff taxes on the American people as necessary to boost U.S. manufacturing output, let’s examine that statement by going to another Reuters article titled “US manufacturing extends slump; inflation pressures ebbing” by Lucia Mutikani on July 1, 2024, where we have more on that story, as follows::
WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) – U.S. manufacturing contracted for a third straight month in June as demand remained subdued, while a drop in a measure of prices paid by factories for inputs to a six-month low suggested that inflation could continue to subside.
end quote
So, if Trump intends for his tariff taxes on the American people to “boost U.S. manufacturing output,” it would seem that he has some heavy lifting out in front of him to get that job done in his lifetime.
And note this language: “a measure of prices paid by factories for inputs to a six-month low suggested that inflation could continue to subside.”
The ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee saying “inflation could continue to subside” is quite a bit different than Trump’s treasury secretary Bessent saying there is no inflation, is it not?
Going back to that Reuters article, our analysis continues as follows:
The weakness at the end of the second quarter reported by the Institute for Supply Management on Monday was across the board, with ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee Chair Timothy Fiore describing manufacturers as demonstrating “an unwillingness to invest in capital and inventory due to current monetary policy and other conditions.”
Manufacturing is being pressured by higher interest rates and softening demand for goods, though business investment has largely held up.
“We expect the manufacturing sector to remain weak over the next couple of quarters,” said Oliver Allen, senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
“The retreat in corporate bond yields since late last year … seems to have provided some support to investment spending, but not enough to get manufacturing growing again.”
“A much more significant loosening in financial conditions is required to change that.”
end quotes
I wonder if Trump, white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt and Trump treasury secretary Scott Bessent, a man very full of himself, are aware of any of that reality.
Going back to Reuters, the news continues as follows:
The ISM’s manufacturing PMI slipped to 48.5 last month from 48.7 in May.
It has indicated contraction in manufacturing in 19 of the last 20 months.
Sixty-two percent of manufacturing gross domestic product contracted, up from 55% in May.
Machinery, transportation equipment, electrical equipment, appliances and components as well as computer and electronic products were among the nine industries that contracted.
Commentary from manufacturers was mostly downbeat.
Makers of chemical products reported a “high volume of customer orders.”
Transportation equipment manufacturers, however, complained that “customers continue to cut orders with short notice, causing a ripple effect throughout lower-tier suppliers.”
Makers of electrical equipment, appliances and components reported that “customers (were) ordering more to create buffer stocks, in case of future shortages.”
Manufacturers of fabricated metal products mentioned signs of weak demand, adding “we must work to reduce inventory levels.”
Machinery manufacturers said “sales backlog is decreasing,” and that they had “furloughed a portion of our workforce as a result.”
Makers of miscellaneous manufactured goods reported that the “level of production is lower due to decreased demand for products.”
end quote
Decreased demand for products, people?
Never a good sign in the business world, which again takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
Government data last week showed manufacturing contracted at a 4.3% annualized rate in the first quarter, with most of the decline coming from long-lasting manufactured goods.
Output at factories decreased for the first time since February.
Inflation at the factory gate was much cooler.
The survey’s measure of prices paid by manufacturers dropped to 52.1, the lowest reading since December, from 57.0 in May.
Factory employment slipped after briefly rebounding in May amid layoffs, attrition and hiring freezes.
end quotes
And that for the moment is the news, but stay tuned, for more is yet to come!
And before we go back in time to then-President Herbert Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, also known as the Tariff Act of 1930, on June 17, 1930, and thus, sealing the fate of the American people as far as the Great Depression was concerned, we need to go back to the Reuters above here titled “US customs duties top $100 billion for first time in a fiscal year” by David Lawder on July 11, 2025, where we have further background on Trump’s tariff taxes to consider, to wit:
For the first nine months of fiscal 2025, the customs take reached records of $113.3 billion on a gross basis and $108 billion on a net basis, nearly double the prior-year collections.
Based on those results, tariffs have now grown into the fourth-largest revenue source for the federal government, behind individual withheld receipts at $2.683 trillion for the fiscal year, non-withheld individual receipts at $965 billion and corporate taxes at $392 billion.
end quotes
And back on June 17, 1930, when President Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (also known as the Tariff Act of 1930) in an effort to protect American industries from foreign competition during the Great Depression, he too believed it would stimulate the American economy by raising tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, thus encouraging consumers to buy domestically produced products, and additionally, as is the case again today, there was a need to generate revenue for the federal government, which takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
In the space of roughly four months, tariffs as a share of federal revenue have more than doubled to around 5% from about 2% historically.
The June budget surplus represented a turnaround from the $71 billion deficit in June 2024.
The new tariff-related revenue helped boost total budget receipts last month by 13%, or $60 billion, to $526 billion, a record for that month, the Treasury said.
The overall year-to-date deficit, however, increased 5%, or $64 billion, to $1.337 trillion, as outlays rose for health care programs, Social Security retirement benefits, defense spending, debt interest and the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury said.
The Treasury’s interest costs on the national debt continued to grow, exceeding all other individual outlays at $921 billion for the first nine months of the fiscal year, up 6%, or $53 billion, from the year-ago period.
end quotes
Focus in on that figure, people – the Treasury’s interest costs on OUR national debt exceeds all other individual outlays at $921 billion for the first nine months of the fiscal year, up 6%, or $53 billion, from the year-ago period.
And some of that money, which comes out of our economy, goes to China, because China buys our national debt to keep the lights on in Washington, D.C.
Going back to Reuters, it continues as follows:
Bessent earlier this week suggested a steeper ramp-up in tariff collections, telling a cabinet meeting that calendar-year 2025 collections could grow to $300 billion by the end of December.
At the June run rate, gross customs collections would hit $276.5 billion in six months’ time, which means reaching Bessent’s target would require some increases.
Ernie Tedeschi, economics director of the Budget Lab at Yale University, said it may take more time for the tariff revenue to fully ramp up because businesses and consumers have sought to front run the duties by buying ahead.
Once that effect fades and Trump implements higher “reciprocal tariff” rates after an August 1 deadline, the Treasury may collect an extra $10 billion in tariffs per month, bringing the total to $37 billion, he said.
“I think there’s a significant risk…that we get addicted to tariff revenue,” said Tedeschi, who served as a White House economic adviser during the Biden administration.
He added that tariff income could fade over time as businesses and consumers adjust their behavior.
But Trump this week has ratcheted up his tariff actions, announcing 50% levies on copper imports and goods from Brazil and a 35% tariff on Canadian goods, all due to start on August 1.
The Trump administration is preparing more sector-based tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
end quotes
And that for the moment, people, is the news!
But don’t away, because this story is just now beginning!
Will we escape the results of Hoover signing Smoot-Hawley on June 17, 1930?
Or are we doomed to follow the same path down?
Stay tuned!
Life in the fast lane, people, fasten your seatbelts, for the ride might get a bit hairy, as we now have a man in the White House who seems impervious to reality, and if he actually went to high school, either he didn’t pay attention or he didn’t care to learn, or like Hussein Obama, he was simply there as a “pass-through,” someone special who was part of a quota system or affirmative action program for those in America handicapped by bone spurs.
For example, consider the Reuters article titled “Trump says U.S. interest rate is at least 3 points too high” on July 9, 2025, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on the Federal Reserve to lower the federal benchmark interest rate by at least 3 percentage points, renewing his call for the U.S. central bank to lower rates to help reduce the cost to service the nation’s debt.
“Our Fed Rate is AT LEAST 3 Points too high.”
“’Too Late’ is costing the U.S. 360 Billion Dollars a Point, PER YEAR, in refinancing costs.”
“No Inflation, COMPANIES POURING INTO AMERICA.”
“The hottest Country in the World!”
“LOWER THE RATE!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
end quotes
Except Trump doesn’t know what he is talking about, and is clearly confused there, which brings us to a MarketWatch article titled “Housing market is sending a stark warning to the U.S. economy, Moody’s economist says” by Aarthi Swaminathan on 15 July 2025, where we have as follows on that same subject, to wit:
In his call for lower mortgage rates, Zandi joins Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Pulte has been pushing for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which he says will make housing more affordable.
Pulte has criticized Fed Chair Jerome Powell, saying in a post on X that Powell is “doing a great injustice to this Country” by not lowering rates.
Mortgage rates, however, don’t directly follow the direction of the Fed’s benchmark rate.
Rather, they tend to move in tandem with the yield on 10-year Treasury notes.
The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.83% as of Monday afternoon, according to Mortgage News Daily.
end quotes
Powell and the fed have absolutely nothing to do with the rates on the 10-year bond and 30-year bond.
That is a function of the treasury market, and while Trump is sniveling and whining and crying about how high bond rates are in America. let’s go to his own treasury site to see what kind of interest rates he and Bessent are paying, to wit:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Daily Treasury Bill Rates
07/14/2025
4 week: 4.25
6 week: 4.25
8 week: 4.27
13 week: 4.26
17 week: 4.23
26 week: 4.13
52 week: 3.91
end quotes
So, if Trump is really concerned about high interest rates on US debt, which he is wracking up at a record pace, the man he needs to talk to is named Scott Bessent, not Jerome Powell.
And on that same subject of who is causing high interest rates here in America on the massive debt he is wracking up, let’s go to a Reuters article titled “Investors seek protection from risk of Fed chief’s ouster” by Carolina Mandl, Matt Tracy and Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss on July 15, 2025, where we have this bit of reality Trump cannot seem to comprehend, to wit:
U.S. Treasury 30-year yields on Tuesday topped 5% for the first time since late May, as investors fretted about the country’s huge fiscal deficit and assessed the risk of Powell’s exit from the central bank.
end quote
The enemy of our economy is not in the Eccles building where the fed is housed, people!
The real enemy of our economy is in the Washington white house, which brings us to a Reuters article titled “US consumer prices rise in June as tariff pass-through begins” by Lucia Mutikani on July 15, 2025, where we have this on the inflation Trump’s delusional treasury secretary Scott Bessent tells us we are not having as a result of Trump’s tariff taxes on the American people, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) – U.S. consumer prices increased by the most in five months in June amid higher costs for some goods, suggesting tariffs were starting to have an impact on inflation and potentially keeping the Federal Reserve on the sidelines until September.
end quote
In that article, we have this choice comment from Trump to consider, to wit:
Trump persisted on Tuesday, writing on his Truth Social media platform, “Consumer Prices LOW. Bring down the Fed Rate, NOW!!”
end quote
And seriously, people, when was last time Trump went shopping for consumer goods?
And then we go to a Reuters article titled “Fed’s inflation fears start to be realized with June CPI increase” by Howard Schneider on July 15, 2025, where we learn as follows about the inflation Trump’s delusional treasury secretary Scott Bessent is not happening, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) – Rising prices across an array of goods from coffee to audio equipment to home furnishings pulled inflation higher in June in what economists see as evidence of the Trump administration’s increasing import taxes passing through to consumers.
“Today’s report showed that tariffs are beginning to bite,” said Omair Sharif, head of Inflation Insights, “apparel prices rose, household furnishing prices jumped … and recreation commodities increased.”
Those are heavily imported items and the increases were substantial.
Prices for audio-video equipment rose 1.1% over the month and have risen 11.1% on a year over year basis, the largest jump ever in a category where globalization had generally meant steady or falling prices.
Yields on U.S. Treasury securities rose to their highest in about a month, and interest rate futures reflected growing uncertainty that the Fed would resume rate cuts in September, with a model from CME group showing that decision was seen a near toss-up after being the baseline expectation for the past month or so.
end quotes
And if we scroll down through that news article, we come to this bit of inanity from white house mouthpiece and head cheerleader Karoline Claire Leavitt, to wit:
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the fact that core inflation, which excludes food and energy prices, increased less than expected, “proves that President Trump is stabilizing inflation.”
end quote
Uh, yeah, okay, Karoline, whatever it is you say, because you are Trump’s chief propagandist which means you must always be right, especially when you are dead wrong and don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
People, if you are concerned about your future, and that of your family and nation, the very last person in the world you want to be listening to and taking any kind of advice from about anything would be white house mouthpiece Karoline Claire Leavitt.
And that for the moment is the news!
For the record, Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America, and myself, are the same age, born within weeks of each other, so that there is nothing that occurred in the lifetime of Donald Trump that did not also occur in mine with respect to national and international events, and here, let’s go back to 1951, when Donald Trump was alive, and the so-called “accord,” as Trump lackey Kevin Warsh, a contender to replace Jerome Powell as federal reserve chairman, calls it, between the federal reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department now headed up by Trump cheerleader Scott Bessent, which takes us to a CNBC article titled “Kevin Warsh touts ‘regime change’ at Fed and calls for partnership with Treasury” by Jeff Cox on July 17, 2025, where we have as follows on Trump’s all-out assault on poor Jerry Powell, who Trump clearly doesn’t like, and the federal reserve, to wit:
Former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh, reportedly on President Donald Trump’s short list to lead the institution, called Thursday for sweeping changes on how the central bank conducts business and suggested a policy alliance with the Treasury Department.
“We need regime change in the conduct of policy,” Warsh said during an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
“The credibility deficit lies with the incumbents that are at the Fed, in my view.”
Principal among those holdover officials is Chair Jerome Powell, who repeatedly has incurred Trump’s wrath and is certain not to be reappointed when his term expires in May 2026, if attempts aren’t made to remove him before then.
Warsh is considered one of three or four finalists to take over, and he expressed multiple sentiments in line with what Trump wants from the Fed.
end quotes
And my goodness, people, of course he did, because if he didn’t mouth Trump’s exact words with tones of adulation, Trump wouldn’t have anything to do with the dude, which takes us back to CNBC, to wit:
The president has demanded the central bank cut its benchmark overnight borrowing rate and has urged Powell to resign for not pushing for cuts.
end quotes
And thankfully, so far, the federal reserve is ignoring him – let him rant and have his temper tantrum, because when it comes to setting monetary policy, for the good of this nation and its economy, Trump does not and should not get a vote.
And if we need a reminder as to why that should be, why we do not want or need Trump’s political manipulation of the federal reserve, let us go back to 1969, the year I was in Viet Nam, and President Richard Nixon appointing Arthur F. Burns as Counselor to the President, with the understanding that Burns would eventually replace William McChesney Martin as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Burns officially became Fed Chairman in February 1970, and served as Fed Chairman from February 1970 to January 1978.
And Wikipedia then notes that Burns’s tenure was marked by concerns about political influence on monetary policy, which will be the same concern with regard to anyone Trump appoints.
It is Burns we have to thank for the STAGFLATION we lived through back then.
In a BBC article titled “The perils of a political Federal Reserve” by Kim Gittleson & Joe Miller, Business reporters, BBC News, on 10 December 2017, we are reminded of these famous words from back then, which words could well come from the mouth of Trump today, to wit:
“I respect his independence,” said US President Richard Nixon. “However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed.”
And on that note, we will take a break, but stay tuned, for more, much more, is yet to come.
“We need regime change in the conduct of policy!”
“The credibility deficit lies with the incumbents that are at the Fed, in my view.”
And that, people, was Trump lackey Kevin Warsh, a contender to replace Jerome Powell as federal reserve chairman, speaking out in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” as reported in a CNBC article titled “Kevin Warsh touts ‘regime change’ at Fed and calls for partnership with Treasury” by Jeff Cox on July 17, 2025.
As to Warsh and the serious credibility problems at the federal reserve, which are nothing new, believe me, Kevin himself was a member of the federal reserve back in 2008, when we had the financial crisis, so he would know quite a bit about credibility problems at the fed and incompetence, since he was there when it all went down.
Kevin served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 2006 to 2011, having been sworn in on February 24, 2006, and resigning on March 31, 2011, after publicly voicing his opposition to the central bank’s plan to buy $600 billion worth of bonds to inject more money into the economy.
And as we older people with memories longer than two or three seconds remember, that was back when the bearded buffoon Ben Bernanke expressed skepticism about a nationwide decline in housing prices prior to the 2008 financial crisis, and so, was “TOO LATE” with respect to preventing the GREAT RECESSION.
In 2005, as we recall, Bernanke stated that a nationwide decline in house prices was “a pretty unlikely possibility” because “We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis”.
He believed that prices would more likely slow or stabilize, which could slightly slow consumption spending but would not significantly derail the economy.
Also in 2005, Bernanke testified that the significant rise in U.S. house prices resulted from “strong economic fundamentals” like job growth, rising incomes, and new households, and Bernanke’s view at the time was that a national price decline was improbable, which comments reflected the understanding of the housing market at that time, prior to the full impact of the housing bubble and crash.
And yes, people, today, many experts and reports suggest the Federal Reserve did make mistakes during the 2008 financial crisis, contributing to the severity of the recession.
While the Fed did take some actions to stabilize the economy, some argue that their response was too slow and inadequate.
First of all, the Fed was criticized for not recognizing the severity of the housing bubble and the interconnectedness of various financial markets, including mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
Then, some argue that the Fed failed to lower interest rates quickly enough in response to the weakening economy, potentially exacerbating the crisis.
And the Federal Reserve’s role as a regulator was criticized for being ineffective in preventing the risky lending practices and the buildup of toxic assets that fueled the crisis.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the Fed’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages was a significant factor in the crisis.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission also found that the Fed’s policies contributed to the crisis by allowing excessive borrowing and risk-taking.
Some economists argue that the Fed’s focus on inflation control led to interest rate hikes that further destabilized the housing market and economy.
And the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission also found that key policymakers lacked a full understanding of the financial system and underestimated the potential for a systemic collapse.
The Fed’s transcripts from the period reveal officials’ surprise at the severity of the crisis and their struggles to grasp the interconnectedness of various markets, and the Fed’s actions and decision-making during the crisis were criticized for a lack of transparency, which made it difficult for the public to understand their reasoning and hold them accountable.
So in conclusion, people, while the Fed did take some actions to mitigate the crisis, it is widely acknowledged that their response was not perfect and that they made mistakes that contributed to the severity of the 2008 financial crisis.
So where was Kevin Warsh while all of that was going down, people?
During the 2008 financial crisis, Kevin Warsh, then a governor of the Federal Reserve, became a key advisor to then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the same dude who was asleep at the switch when the deal went down in 2008 and the housing market meltdown.
Warsh was instrumental in brokering the sale of Wachovia Corp. to Wells Fargo & Co. and helped develop a plan to inject billions of dollars into the nation’s largest banks.
I think that is one of the reasons Trump likes Kevin as his choice for the chairmanship of the federal reserve.
Going back to 2008, Warsh reportedly warned his colleagues at the federal reserve that the banking system was undercapitalized well before the crisis intensified.
When the **** hit the fan, Warsh’s connections on Wall Street proved invaluable, with him becoming a key architect of a plan to provide billions of dollars in capital to the nine largest banks in the fall of 2008.
Privatize profits, socialize losses!
Then, in late 2008, Warsh voted with his colleagues to lower interest rates to near zero in an effort to stimulate the economy.
However, in September 2009, Warsh then expressed concerns about potential inflationary pressures and suggested the Fed might need to raise rates more aggressively in the future, which highlighted the ongoing debate about the appropriate monetary policy response to the crisis and the need to balance economic growth with inflation control.
So, do we want Kevin Warsh back on the federal reserve chairman?
Not hardly, is my thought.
But stay tuned, more on the subject of federal reserve incompetence and the need for regime change is yet to come!
And while we are on the very important subject of the credibility deficit of the federal reserve lying with the incumbents that are at the Fed, in the view of Trump lackey and cheerleader Kevin Warsh, a contender to replace Jerome Powell as federal reserve chairman, who was speaking out in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” as reported in a CNBC article titled “Kevin Warsh touts ‘regime change’ at Fed and calls for partnership with Treasury” by Jeff Cox on July 17, 2025, to witness the credibility deficit in action, let’s go to a Reuters article titled “Waller says he’s willing to lead Fed if Trump asks, but no contact so far” by Howard Schneider on July 18, 2025, where we have as follows on that very subject of the politicization of the fed by its own insiders like this Waller dude, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 18 (Reuters) – Federal Reserve Governor Chris Waller, an advocate for an immediate interest rate cut, said on Friday he would accept the job as head of the U.S. central bank if asked by President Donald Trump, but so far Trump has not contacted him about it.
end quote
And he is now flouncing his stuff on the national stage, looking pretty for Trump, and hoping it will be he who will get both the nod and the power, which takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
“In 2019 the president contacted me and said, ‘Would you serve?'”
“And I said yes,” Waller told Bloomberg Television, referring to Trump’s appointment of him to the Fed’s Board of Governors.
“If the president contacted me and said, ‘I want you to serve,’ I would do it.”
“But he has not contacted me.”
end quotes
And oh BOO HOO, is he getting jilted?
Going back to Reuters, we have more as follows:
Trump has launched a barrage of nearly daily criticism at Fed Chair Jerome Powell over the central bank’s reluctance to cut rates due to concern the administration’s trade and tariff policies will increase inflation.
end quote
And my goodness, people, how very tedious and tiresome that whining and crying by this nation’s chief executive has become!
He’ll be turning blue in the face and throwing a major hissy fit if Powell doesn’t leave soon, and that won’t be pretty!
Going back to Reuters and the credibility problems at the fed Kevin Warsh is warning us about, we have more as follows, to wit:
Waller favors a rate cut at the Fed’s upcoming July 29-30 meeting because he feels the tariffs are likely to have a limited impact on inflation, and he is concerned the economy and private-sector hiring are starting to slow.
end quote
He feels the tariffs are likely to have a limited impact on inflation?
Oh, do tell!
And if we go back to 2021, this very same Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller was among the Fed officials who described the then-rising inflation as “transitory,” expecting it to be temporary and not a sustained increase, which was ignorant bull****, plain and simple.
This Waller dude who is sucking up to Trump today in the hopes Trump will make him federal reserve chairman based his seriously flawed projections back then on his mistaken belief that the economy would rebound quickly after the pandemic and that supply chain issues would eventually resolve, leading to a moderation of inflation back towards the Fed’s 2% target, which still has not happened.
So much for the Waller dude’s judgment, or lack thereof, which takes us back to Reuters for more, to wit:
Though the unemployment rate is low, Waller said underlying data “are not indicating a super healthy private-sector labor market,” and the Fed should “get ahead” of a possible hiring slowdown.
end quote
And at the same time, in a Reuters article titled “Trump says U.S. interest rate is at least 3 points too high” on July 9, 2025, we had Trump singing an opposite tune, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on the Federal Reserve to lower the federal benchmark interest rate by at least 3 percentage points, renewing his call for the U.S. central bank to lower rates to help reduce the cost to service the nation’s debt.
“No Inflation, COMPANIES POURING INTO AMERICA.”
“The hottest Country in the World!”
end quotes
So, if Trump thinks it is the hottest country in the world right now, how come it is that when we go to an article in the Tampa Free Press titled “Federal Reserve Gov. Christopher Waller Calls For Rate Cut Amid Ongoing Pressure From Trump” by Ireland Owens on July 18, 2025, we have Waller singing a different tune, to wit:
Federal Reserve Gov. Christopher Waller on Thursday called for the central bank to cut interest rates in July.
Waller said that “the risks to the economy are weighted toward cutting [rates] sooner rather than later.”
end quotes
Risks to the economy?
HUH!
Never know it from Trump!
Going back to that article, which puts the federal reserve credibilty gap on full display, we have:
Waller, who is notably seen as a potential candidate to replace Powell as Fed chairman, added that with inflation being “near target,” the central bank “should not wait until the labor market deteriorates” before cutting rates.
“My final reason to favor a cut now is that while the labor market looks fine on the surface, once we account for expected data revisions, private-sector payroll growth is near stall speed, and other data suggest that the downside risks to the labor market have increased,” Waller said.
“We should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate.”
end quotes
We should not wait until the labor market deteriorates?
But why would it, people, if right now, we are the hottest country in the world?
Stay tuned!
And before we get to an India Today article titled “People don’t explain to me, I explain: Trump blasts WSJ again over firing Powell” by India Today World Desk on 21 July 2025 where we had Trump saying “I know better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” and “People don’t explain to me, I explain to them,” and “If it weren’t for me, the Market wouldn’t be at Record Highs right now, it probably would have CRASHED,” let’s go back to Trump lackey and cheerleader Kevin Warsh, as we have said, a contender to replace Jerome Powell as federal reserve chairman, who was speaking out in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” as reported in a CNBC article titled “Kevin Warsh touts ‘regime change’ at Fed and calls for partnership with Treasury” by Jeff Cox on July 17, 2025, where we had more, as follows. to wit
Warsh’s comments indicate he could be at loggerheads not only with the way Powell has led the Fed, but also with holdover members who would be in place should he be put at the organization’s helm.
“Their hesitancy to cut rates, I think, is actually … quite a mark against them,” Warsh said.
“The specter of the miss they made on inflation, it has stuck with them.”
“So one of the reasons why the president, I think, is right to be pushing the Fed publicly is we need regime change in the conduct of policy.”
Asked whether Trump should try to fire Powell, Warsh said, “I think regime change at the Fed will happen in due course.”
Trump’s main stated reason in pushing for rate cuts has been to help lower financing costs on the nation’s $36 trillion debt, which is ostensibly out of the Fed’s twin goals of low unemployment and stable prices.
However, Warsh seemed to take the issue a step further and suggested a coordination between the Fed and the Treasury Department in how the nation manages debt issuance.
“We need a new Treasury-Fed accord, like we did in 1951 after another period where we built up our nation’s debt and we were stuck with a central bank that was working at cross purposes with the Treasury.”
“That’s the state of things now,” he said.
“So if we have a new accord, then the .. Fed chair and the Treasury secretary can describe to markets plainly and with deliberation, ‘This is our objective for the size of the Fed’s balance sheet.’”
end quotes
And people, let me step in here as an older American who was, like Trump, alive back in 1951, and say that I am not sure young Mr. Warsh, born April 13, 1970, the year I got back to here from LBJ’s war in Viet Nam that Donald Trump missed out on because he was seriously crippled up with the worst case of bone spurs in the history of medical science, they say, knows what he is talking about with respect to that accord, which takes us to the federal reserve’s history of the event titled, not surprisingly, “The Treasury-Fed Accord – March 1951,” by Jessie Romero, where we have as follows on the subject, to wit:
Independence and insulation from political pressures are essential to the ability of a nation’s central bank to conduct monetary policy (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 2013).
During World War II and its aftermath the Federal Reserve did not enjoy such independence.
In 1951, however, the Treasury Department and the Fed reached an agreement now known as the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord.
This accord effected the “liberation of monetary policy” and laid the foundation for the modern Federal Reserve (Stein 1969).
end quotes
What Warsh is suggesting puts the federal reserve back under the control of Donald Trump, which would be a reversal of that 1951 accord, which takes us back to the history as the fed tells it, to wit:
In April 1942, at the request of the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve formally committed to maintaining a low interest-rate peg of 3/8 percent on short-term Treasury bills.
end quote
And as was stated above, today, Bessent, Trump’s treasury secretary, on 07/14/2025, was paying 4.25% on a 4 week bill, 4.25% on a 6 week bill and 4.27% on an 8 week bill, and Trump wonders why it costs so much to finance our ever-growing federal debt load, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fed, nor is a new accord going to rein in Bessent and what he is paying out on that short-term debt.
Going back to the history, it continues as follows:
The Fed also implicitly capped the rate on long-term Treasury bonds at 2.5 percent.
The goal of the peg was to stabilize the securities market and allow the federal government to engage in cheaper debt financing of World War II, which the United States had entered in December 1941.
To maintain the peg, the Fed was forced to give up control of the size of its portfolio as well as the money stock.
Simply put, the Fed maintained the low interest rate by buying large amounts of government securities, which also increased the money supply.
Because the Fed was committed to a specific rate, it had to keep buying securities even if the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) might have preferred a different monetary policy.
end quotes
And there, people, is exactly where this Kevin Warsh wants to return us to, with Donald Trump having control over monetary policy, and what an unmitigated disaster for America that would be, but stay tuned.
More is yet to come.
And before we go back to 1951, eleven years before Trump’s treasury secretary Bessent was born, and the federal reserve/treasury accord that seems to be beyond the level of the intelligence of Trump cheerleader Kevin Warsh’s to comprehend and understand, let’s take a moment to go back to the original post where we had Karoline Claire Leavitt, born August 24, 1997, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025, starring in a Mediate article titled “Karoline Leavitt Claims China Will Pay Cost of Tariffs — Contradicting Trump, Who Said Walmart Would” by Alex Griffing on May 19th, 2025, where we had as follows, to wit:
Weijia Jiang, CBS News senior White House correspondent, pressed Trump Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday over conflicting statements coming from President Donald Trump and some of his top aides as to whether or not American companies will pay the price of his tariffs.
Leavitt’s answer appeared to be at odds with Trump’s recent claim that Walmart will need to “eat” some of the cost of his tariffs.
“President Trump and his top economic aides have repeatedly said that Americans will not pay the cost of tariffs.”
“In fact, last week, Lutnick said people have to drop the quote ‘silly arguments that consumers would pay the cost,’” Jiang began, referencing a recent statement from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
“But over the weekend, as you know, the president posted that Walmart ‘should eat the tariffs and not charge the value customer anything.”
“‘I’ll be watching and so will your customers.’”
“So does he acknowledge that if companies don’t absorb the full cost, Americans will have to pay?” Jiang asked.
end quotes
And instead of wasting time seeking an answer to that question from Karoline Claire Leavitt, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who is now the White House press secretary, let’s just go to a Fortune article titled “GM’s $1.1 billion tariff hit bolsters mounting evidence that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump’s import taxes” by Sasha Rogelberg on 23 July 2025, where we have the reality of the situation plainly stated, to wit:
General Motors had a more than $1 billion chunk taken out of its profits due to tariff costs, the company reported on Tuesday.
GM, as well as other automakers like Stellantis, have contributed to evidence indicating American companies and consumers — not exporters — are the ones paying for tariffs.
end quotes
And as an older American who is the same age as Donald Trump, the megalomaniac quoted in an India Today article titled “People don’t explain to me, I explain: Trump blasts WSJ again over firing Powell” by India Today World Desk on 21 July 2025 as saying “I know better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” and “People don’t explain to me, I explain to them,” and “If it weren’t for me, the Market wouldn’t be at Record Highs right now, it probably would have CRASHED,” I frankly am surprised at how many people in this nation, starting with Trump, don’t understand how tariffs work.
Going back to Fortune, we have more, as follows:
General Motors is the latest U.S. auto giant to say tariffs have taken a chunk from their earnings.
The company beat earnings expectations on Tuesday, but reported a decline in second-quarter profits, including a $1.1 billion hit as a result of hefty import taxes.
GM’s rival Stellantis, which owns Jeep and Ram Trucks among other brands, announced on Monday $2.7 billion in net losses for the first half of the year as North American sales continued to slump.
Those struggles were exacerbated by the “early effects of U.S. tariffs,” according to Stellantis, which had a more than $350 million negative impact on the company.
The auto companies’ tariff hit reinforced concerns — and emerging evidence — that Americans are the ones footing the bill for Trump’s sweeping tariff policy.
end quotes
Which is something both Donald Trump and I learned back in the seventh grade when we were studying Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression, lessons Trump either never really learned, or forgot as soon as the class was over, because, as he says, “People don’t explain to me, I explain to them,” which takes us back to Fortune, to wit:
“The top-down macroevidence seems clear: Americans are mostly paying for the tariffs,” Deutsche Bank analyst George Saravelos said in the note.
Saravelos posited that because the Consumer Price Index has so far indicated only modest levels of inflation, “it follows that American importers are mostly absorbing the tariffs into their profit margins.”
The phenomenon is exemplified by Stellantis and GM eating billions in tariff costs.
Bernstein senior analyst Daniel Roeska said auto companies have started to exhaust their strategy of absorbing tariff costs into their own margins as car prices are poised to skyrocket later this year.
“There are only two people who can pay for [tariffs]: either the shareholders or the consumer,” Roeska told Fortune.
“And in the end, there’s going to be some sharing between those two halves.”
“And so our view has been and continues to be that prices for cars are going to push up in the second half.”
There’s already indications American consumers will be the next to take the tariff punch.
Car companies are beginning to roll back discounts and incentives implemented months earlier to boost sales, as evidenced by Ford Motors switching away from its employee discount plan for prospective buyers in favor of a $0 down and 0% interest or financing plan.
end quotes
And while we wait to hear Karoline Claire Leavitt, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who is now the White House press secretary, screeching that none of that is true, let’s pause for station identification, but don’t change that dial, because we will be right back with more!
Were I to be asked to compare our Donald Trump with a famous historical king, without a doubt, my choice would be Ludwig II (Ludwig Otto Friedrich Wilhelm; 25 August 1845 – 13 June 1886), who was also called the Swan King or the Fairy Tale King (der Märchenkönig), and who was King of Bavaria from 1864 until his death in 1886.
Were I to be asked to compare our Donald Trump with a famous mythological figure, my choice would be the Greek myth of Narcissus, a hunter renowned for his beauty, but also for his vanity and lack of regard for those who loved him, so that when Nemesis, an avenging goddess, lured him to a pool, he fell in love with his own reflection, unable to tear himself away, ultimately leading to his demise, which is the story of the origin of the term “narcissism,” which describes an excessive fascination with oneself, which is indeed an accurate characterization our own Donald Trump.
And with respect to Trump’s comments in an India Today article titled “People don’t explain to me, I explain: Trump blasts WSJ again over firing Powell” by India Today World Desk on 21 July 2025 where we had Trump saying “I know better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” and “People don’t explain to me, I explain to them,” and “If it weren’t for me, the Market wouldn’t be at Record Highs right now, it probably would have CRASHED,” I personally do not listen to any explanations put forth by Trump about any thing, precisely because I do not believe the man has a clue about anything he talks about, and much of what he talks about makes him sound quite frankly like a ******* idiot, such as in the CNBC article “10-year Treasury yield falls as investors assess U.S. economy, trade developments” by Sean Conlon and Lee Ying Shan on July 25, 2025, where we had as follows from Trump showing off his ignorance and shallow level of thinking, to wit:
During a remarkable visit Thursday afternoon to the Fed’s massive renovation project, the president again pushed for lower rates.
“We’d be like a rocket ship.”
“As good as we’re doing, we do better if we had lower interest rates,” Trump told reporters outside the central bank building.
“And we should.”
“We’re prime.”
“Don’t forget, without us, the whole world collapses.”
“So we should have the lowest interest rate.”
end quotes
Which is simply the kind of absurd reasoning that I have come to expect from Donald Trump.
As to his comment about how good we are supposedly doing, let’s take a look by going to Reuters article titled “US business activity rises; tariffs fuel inflation concerns” by Lucia Mutikani on July 24, 2025, where we have this to consider:
WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) – U.S. business activity picked up in July, but companies asked higher prices for goods and services, supporting economists’ views that inflation will accelerate in the second half of the year mainly because of tariffs on imports.
end quote
That of course is the inflation Trump and Bessent are telling us we are not going to have, as if anyone here in America or anywhere else for that matter was a big enough idiot to listen to anything Donald Trump or Scott Bessent have to say about the economy.
Going back to that story, it continues, as follows:
Despite the increase in activity this month, the survey from S&P Global on Thursday also showed sentiment among businesses remained downbeat, which it said “primarily reflected broad-based concerns over tariffs and cuts to state funding following recent federal government policy changes.”
end quote
Downb eat?
But how can that be when Trump says we are doing so well?
Going back to Reuters for more, we have:
Consumer prices increased by the most in five months in June, with solid rises in the costs of tariff-exposed goods like household furnishings and supplies, appliances, sporting goods and toys, signaling that President Donald Trump’s broad import duties were starting to have an impact on inflation.
end quote
And wow, people, what a huge surprise that is, don’t you think?
Who’d a thought it!
Going back to Reuters for more, we have:
The survey’s flash manufacturing PMI dropped to 49.5, the first contraction since December, from 52.9 in June.
Manufacturing received a bump from front-loading of activity ahead of tariffs as well as from the protectionist nature of the duties.
But S&P Global noted that “any protectionist benefits of import tariffs were often outweighed by concerns over higher prices and rising costs.”
end quotes
Which is something Donald Trump and Scott Bessent are blissfully ignorant of, because neither of them has a clue as to how our economy really functions, and how things get made, because neither of them has ever actually been responsible to making anything, which again takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
The survey’s measure of prices paid by businesses for inputs edged up to 61.9 from 61.2 in June.
The price gauge for services inputs jumped to 61.4 from 59.7 in June.
While the pace of price rises for manufacturing inputs slowed, nearly two-thirds of manufacturers in the survey reporting higher costs attributed those to tariffs.
The survey’s measure of prices charged by businesses for goods and services ticked up to 58.6 from 58.1 in June.
The prices charged gauge for services increased to 58.2 from 57.2 in June.
About 40% of service providers reporting higher selling prices explicitly mentioned tariffs, while just under half of their counterparts in manufacturing blamed the import duties.
end quotes
But if you believe either Trump or Bessent about the impact of Trump’s tariff taxes on the American people, you will call thyat all fake news, which again takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
“The rise in selling prices for goods and services in July, which was one of the largest seen over the past three years, suggests that consumer price inflation will rise further above the Fed’s 2% target in the coming months as these price hikes feed through to households,” said Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.
end quote
And from there we go to another Reuters article titled “US business equipment spending appears to have slowed sharply in second quarter” by Lucia Mutikani on July 25, 2025, where we have more on the state of the economy under Donald Trump, to wit:
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Reuters) – New orders for key U.S.-manufactured capital goods unexpectedly fell in June while shipments of those products increased moderately, suggesting that business spending on equipment slowed considerably in the second quarter.
While some of the tariff-related spending to avoid even higher goods prices has persisted, uncertainty over where tariff levels will eventually settle has prompted some businesses to hold off capital expenditures.
“This softness is consistent with the torrent of anecdotal reports in recent months that businesses are delaying their investment plans until they have more clarity on tariffs and the rest of the policy landscape,” said Stephen Stanley, chief U.S. economist at Santander U.S. Capital Markets.
Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, a closely watched proxy for business spending plans, dropped 0.7% last month after an upwardly revised 2.0% rebound in May, the Commerce Department’s Census Bureau said on Friday.
“Nominal core shipments have risen steadily since late last year, but almost all of this increase has reflected higher capital goods prices rather than stronger volumes,” said Oliver Allen, senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
“Underlying equipment investment probably will continue to grind lower, despite the tax advantages granted by the One Big Beautiful Bill, as uncertainty around trade policy will prompt many companies to keep capex projects on hold.”
A survey from S&P Global on Thursday showed its flash manufacturing PMI contracted in July for the first time since December.
S&P Global noted that “any protectionist benefits of import tariffs were often outweighed by concerns over higher prices and rising costs.”
“Tariffs are pushing up the cost of investment, and policy uncertainty remains pervasive,” said Michael Pearce, deputy chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
“That is consistent with business equipment investment declining outright in the second half of the year.”
end quotes
And for the record, Fortune calculated that the average duty under Trump’s plan would hit 22.7 percent, compared to Smoot-Hawley’s 20 percent.
Give that some thought, people, and stay tuned, for more is yet to come.
And were I asked to compare our Donald Trump, who was quoted in an India Today article titled “People don’t explain to me, I explain: Trump blasts WSJ again over firing Powell” by India Today World Desk on 21 July 2025 as saying “I know better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” to a well-known and famous fictional character, hand’s down it would have to be Baron Vladimir Harkonnen from Dune who was famous for turning Giedi Prime into an industrial wasteland with a low photosynthetic potential and the planet’s bio-resources depleted and its environment fouled with industrial pollution.
As to Trump’s comment in that India Today article that “If it weren’t for me, the Market wouldn’t be at Record Highs right now, it probably would have CRASHED,” that statement of his reminds me of what Donald Trump and I both learned back in the seventh grade, I think it was, that in 1929, the last year of that period in American history known as the Roaring Twenties, the stock market back then was booming, as well, particularly in the first half of 1929, before the infamous crash in October known in our history, the history that Donald Trump and I learned in high school, as “Black Tuesday.”
Back then, according to history as it happened, the market experienced a significant rise throughout the 1920s, and the period leading up to the crash was characterized by intense speculation and a surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing six-fold from August 1921 to September 1929.
Like today, back then, stock prices reached record highs, and many investors, including ordinary citizens, were drawn to the market, some even investing on margin, which is to say, borrowing money to buy stocks.
Back then, the market’s peak in the summer of 1929 was sometimes referred to as the “Hoover bull market,” named after President Herbert Hoover, who was inaugurated in January 1929, just as today, it is referred to fittingly as the “Trump Bull Market.”
However, people, despite the boom, there were underlying issues, as is the case again today, such as production declining, while unemployment was rising.
And as we who remember history recall, the market peaked on September 3, 1929, and began to decline, with the crash in October marking the beginning of the Great Depression, which in turn gave us the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in 1930, which in turn significantly impacted consumption in the United States by raising the price of imported goods and triggering retaliatory tariffs from other nations, ultimately reducing overall consumption and exacerbating the Great Depression.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act then led to a decrease in both imports and exports, resulting in higher prices for consumers and reduced purchasing power.
By way of review, the primary goal of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was to protect American industries and farmers by raising tariffs on imported goods, which, however, made imported goods more expensive for consumers, decreasing their ability to purchase them.
And then, in response to the U.S. tariffs, other countries imposed their own retaliatory tariffs on American goods, leading to a significant decrease in U.S. exports which further reduced consumption as American businesses faced declining sales and were forced to cut production, leading to job losses and reduced consumer income.
The combined effect of increased import prices and retaliatory tariffs then caused a dramatic decline in global trade, impacting both domestic and international consumption, and that reduction in trade and consumption contributed to the severity of the Great Depression, with unemployment rates reaching over 25% in 1933, according to some estimates.
Food for thought, people.
And as we consider the aftermath oof Smoot-Hawley, think about a Reuters article titled “Tariff woes depress US manufacturing, erode labor demand” by Lucia Mutikani on April 1, 2025, where we had as follows:
WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) – U.S. manufacturing contracted in March after growing for two straight months, while a measure of inflation at the factory gate jumped to the highest level in nearly three years amid rising anxiety over tariffs on imported goods.
Anecdotes from the Institute for Supply Management survey on Tuesday offered a gloomy assessment of business conditions, with tariffs cited as a major factor by manufacturers.
President Donald Trump’s wave of tariffs has eroded business and consumer confidence.
The survey added to data, including tepid consumer spending, that have raised the specter of lackluster economic growth and higher inflation.
end quotes
And then go to a Reuters article from May 1, 2025 titled “US manufacturing sectors slump deepens in April” wherein was stated U.S. manufacturing contracted further in April while tariffs on imported goods were straining supply chains, keeping prices paid for inputs elevated.
And ask yourselves this question, then: is Trump aware of any of this?
As to Trump’s comment in that India Today article that “If it weren’t for me, the Market wouldn’t be at Record Highs right now, it probably would have CRASHED,” which is Trump arrogance on steroids speaking, let’s go to a Reuters article titled “S&P 500 and Nasdaq notch record closes, lifted by Alphabet” by Noel Randewich and Pranav Kashyap on July 24, 2025, where we have a different perspective offered, to wit:
July 24 (Reuters) – The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq notched record high closes on Thursday as robust results from Google parent Alphabet fueled optimism about other heavyweight artificial intelligence stocks, while Tesla slumped after the electric vehicle maker’s results disappointed investors.
end quotes
As to Trump crashing the market, let’s go back to April 3, 2025 and a Reuters article titled “Global markets reel as Trump tariffs stoke fear of economic ‘spiral of doom'” by Sinéad Carew and Amanda Cooper, where we have this to consider, to wit:
NEW YORK/LONDON, April 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s punishing tariffs rocked global financial markets on Thursday, with the dollar and U.S. stocks tumbling as investors rushed to safe havens on fears a broadening trade war would push an already fragile world economy into recession.
Trump’s trade measures, announced after Wall Street’s closing bell on Wednesday, were much more severe than many investors were anticipating.
Investors worried that trading partners could retaliate, with one saying that could lead to an economic “spiral of doom.”
“We’re talking about a pretty significant regime change in how the U.S. approaches global trade,” said Michael Reynolds, vice president of investment strategy at Glenmede in Philadelphia.
“And when you have a regime change like this that happens suddenly… it doesn’t surprise us to see a relatively violent market reaction.”
With the prospect of higher prices in an already slowing U.S. economy that depends on the consumer for growth, investors bet on a much higher likelihood of a recession.
“It’s just left everybody in shock,” said Garrett Melson, portfolio strategist at Natixis Investment Managers Solutions in Boston, adding that “a lot of the pain, will probably most acutely be felt in the U.S. and that certainly would weigh on broader global growth as well.”
Many investors had hoped Trump’s highly anticipated announcement would clear the uncertainty over tariff policy that has dogged markets for weeks, but Melson pointed out that investors were still grappling with a lot of unanswered questions.
“We’ve details but there’s absolutely no clarity,” he said.
“We have numbers and we have an idea of how they got to those numbers … but we don’t know how long these are going to stick.”
end quotes
CHAOS, people, that is what our Donald Trump is sowing in his wake as he blissfully continues to believe that he is the greatest thing to come to America since some enterprising soul back when invented sliced white Wonderbread and thereby transformed life here in America foreveraftermore into what it is today.
And as we sit back in here, courtesy of the venerable Cape Charles Mirror, our Grand Palladium of Liberty here in America, and try to get a grasp on where we are in this Age of Chaos and Mutability sown by president Donald Trump not only here in America, but in the world, as well, let’s drop back in time to October 5, 1931, 475 days after president Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into law on June 17, 1930, and a political essay by H.L. Mencken titled, quite appropriately, “The Men Who Rule Us,” where we have as follows as a baseline to consider when we consider the chaotic presidency of Donald Trump to date, to wit:
For his harangue to the learned brethren assembled for the reopening of Columbia University, on September 23, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler chose the title of “Midgets in the Seats of the Mighty,” and in the course of his remarks he indulged himself in some very sad reflections.
end quote
“A Midget in the Seat of the Mighty in America 2025” would actually be a good title for this thread about Trump. to be truthful.
Going back to Mencken, he continues as follows:
The world, he said, and especially that part of it which prefers democratic government, is now run mainly by obvious third-raters.
end quote
And here we are, ninety-four (94) years later in 2025, with the arrogant narcissist Donald Trump in the white house, and in that respect, absolutely nothing has changed.
Going back to Mencken:
How many Presidents of the United States, since the first group of four, have fairly represented “the flower of the nation’s intellect and character”?
Probably five out of the twenty-six, and possibly six: Dr. Butler is not quite sure.
Which Presidents he would nominate as superior if the police got him into a back room at headquarters and proceeded to loosen his tongue with lengths of rubber hose filled with BB shot — this I can only guess.
Most Americans, I suppose, would agree upon Abraham Lincoln, and four out of five would add Andrew Jackson.
That makes two.
The contenders for the third place would be Cleveland, Roosevelt and Wilson, and probably all three would get a majority of votes.
We now have five.
What of the possible sixth?
I search the list in vain.
John Quincy Adams?
Hardly.
Van Buren?
Grant?
McKinley?
Taft?
All are plainly impossible.
Coolidge?
Harding?
Hoover?
The quest becomes ridiculous.
My suspicion, indeed, is that Dr. Butler is a good deal too generous.
end quotes
And such is reality in America today, people, where Donald Trump has replaced the senile Joe Biden as an international embarrassment, which thought takes us back to Trump’s comment in an India Today article titled “People don’t explain to me, I explain: Trump blasts WSJ again over firing Powell” by India Today World Desk on 21 July 2025 that “I know better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” to which my response as a loyal American citizen is horse****, Donald, that’s hardly so.
Point I, Mr. President, in our Constitutional form of government, to protect ourselves from megalomaniacs like Donald Trump who are all puffed up with their own self-importance, thinking they know better than anyone else what’s good for the USA, when they don’t know doodly-squat, like “Lord” Hoover when he signed Smoot-Hawley into law on June 17, 1930 and thereby exacerbated the Great Depression, we, the American people to whom you answer for your conduct in office put what is known as the “shall take care” phrase in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which “Take Care Clause” mandates that the President ensure the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.
The Take Care Clause, found in Article II, Section 3, states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
Donald Trump seems to not know that, or to not care about that, with respect to his tariff taxes on the American people, as well as his tedious, tiresome and childish attacks on poor Jerome Powell of the federal reserve such as this doozy in the CNBC article titled “Trump backs further away from firing Powell: ‘He’s going to be out pretty soon anyway’” by Jeff Cox on July 22, 2025, where we have as follows:
President Donald Trump on Tuesday continued his barrage of criticism against the Federal Reserve but seemed to take a step back from any lingering plans to fire Chair Jerome Powell.
“I think he’s done a bad job, but he’s going to be out pretty soon anyway,” Trump told reporters during a White House exchange.
“Eight months, he’ll be out.”
The exchange came amid continued speculation over Powell’s job security and legal questions over what authority Trump has to remove the central bank leader.
Going back to his first term in office when he appointed Powell, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Fed for an at-times cautious approach to cutting, though it lowered its benchmark borrowing rate a full percentage point in late 2024 around the time of the presidential election.
Trump has accused Powell of being political and nicknamed him “too late” when it has come time to adjusting rates.
“He’s too late all the time.”
“He should have lowered interest rates many times,” Trump said.
“People aren’t able to buy a house because this guy is a numbskull.”
“He keeps the rates too high, and [is] probably doing it for political reasons.”
end quotes
Powell keeps the rates too high, and probably doing it for political reasons?
What an absolutely stupid statement that is for the president of the United Staes to be making!
It’s downright stupid?
And the phrase “probably doing it for political reasons” is an indication Trump doesn’t have a clue as to what he is talking about, as usual.
And then to prove that he is as big an idiot as anyone ever before in our government was an idiot, we have Trump cheerleader and treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who obviously either doesn’t know anything about his job and the hatch Act, or more likely, doesn’t care, because his boss doesn’t care, way off the reservation and out of his lane in a CNBC article titled “Bessent says Powell doesn’t need to resign but should conduct internal review” by Jeff Cox on July 22, 2025, as follows
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday asserted that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell does not need to resign though also he also repeated his desire for a review of the central bank’s operations.
A day after calling on CNBC for an examination of the Fed’s “entire” operation, Bessent said that doesn’t mean the central bank leader should step down.
“I know Chair Powell.”
“There’s nothing that tells me that he should step down right now.”
“He’s been a good public servant,” Bessent said on Fox Business.
“His term ends in May.”
“If he wants to see that through, I think he should.”
“If he wants to leave early, I think he should.”
end quotes
For the record, people, and we are what, back in the seventh grade here, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, which is this idiot Bessent, and the Federal Reserve under poor abused and bullied Jerry Powell, operate with distinct, though sometimes overlapping, responsibilities, particularly in economic policy.
The Treasury Secretary, Bessent, is a political appointee, in the case of Bessent both a lackey and lickspittle of Trump, and a member of the President’s Cabinet, focused on fiscal policy, managing the public debt, and advising on economic matters.
The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, a central bank, is designed to be independent and focuses on monetary policy, including setting interest rates and managing the money supply.
And while the Treasury and the Fed collaborate on some areas, particularly foreign exchange operations, they operate with separate legal mandates and authorities.
The Treasury Secretary is the chief economic advisor to the President and is responsible for formulating and recommending fiscal policy, including tax policy and managing the public debt.
The Treasury acts as the financial agent for the U.S. government, managing government accounts, issuing debt, and overseeing the production of currency.
The Treasury Secretary is the chief international monetary policy official, engaging in international financial and economic policy and coordinating with other countries.
While the Treasury does not directly control the Fed’s monetary policy, the Secretary can influence policy through consultation and coordination on certain matters, particularly foreign exchange operations.
The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting interest rates, managing the money supply, and regulating the banking system to promote price stability and full employment.
The Federal Reserve is designed to be independent from political influence to ensure that monetary policy decisions are based on economic factors rather than political considerations.
The Treasury focuses on fiscal policy (government spending and taxation), while the Fed focuses on monetary policy (interest rates and money supply).
The Treasury Secretary is a political appointee, while the Federal Reserve is designed to be independent.
In essence, while the Treasury Secretary can influence the Fed’s actions through coordination and consultation, the Fed ultimately maintains its independence in setting monetary policy.
So get back where you belong, Bessent, and please, stop talking like such an idiot!
You’re an embarrassment to our nation!
And stay tuned, for the Trump Show has legs and plenty of room to run!
Executive Power:
This clause is a key component of the President’s executive power, encompassing the duty to oversee the enforcement of laws passed by Congress.
Implied Powers:
Beyond the direct mandate, the Take Care Clause implies various other powers, including the ability to:
Inform Congress about the state of the union and recommend legislation according to Congress.gov.
Convene or adjourn Congress under certain circumstances.
Receive ambassadors and other public ministers according to Congress.gov.
Commission all officers of the United States according to Congress.gov.
Scope of Enforcement:
The President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” extends to various areas, including:
Powers directly conferred on the President by the Constitution according to Congress.gov.
Powers granted to the President by acts of Congress according to Congress.gov.
Powers conferred on other executive branch officials according to Congress.gov.
Enforcement of criminal statutes according to Congress.gov.
Ministerial duties, which involve some discretion in how and when laws are executed according to Congress.gov.
Modern Significance:
The Take Care Clause is a crucial aspect of the President’s role in modern governance, particularly in ensuring the faithful execution of laws passed by Congress and the Constitution.
And how this all goes down with this Bessent dude, who thinks he is the one in charge of the federal reserve, since his boss Trump doesn’t give a fig for the law, nor does Trump think or believe that he has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” because according to Trump, he knows better than anybody what’s good for the Market, and what’s good for the USA,” to which my response as a loyal American citizen is horse****, then Bessent doesn’t have to follow the law, either, and who is going to stop him?
Pam Bondi?
And what a joke that is!
As to the chaos Trump is sowing in the world, as if the world were his own personal oyster to do with as he pleases, as if he were a Zerxes or a Caesar Augustus, let’s go to a Reuters article titled “Angry France slams US trade pact ‘submission’ as EU peers breathe sigh of relief” by Philip Blenkinsop and Michel Rose on July 28, 2025, to get a feel for where the rest of the world is today after getting dictated to by Trump yesterday, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Earth, all the nations on it, and the Solar System, as well, to wit:
BRUSSELS, July 28 (Reuters) – France denounced the trade agreement between the European Union and the U.S. as a “submission” on Monday though other EU states largely backed a deal they acknowledged was lopsided but which averts an economically damaging trade war with Washington.
end quote
Ah, yes, the French certainly know a lot about submissions, as we in this country with intact, functioning memories recall France submitting to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich, which takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
The framework deal, announced on Sunday between two economies accounting for almost a third of global trade, will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods from next month, but offers some protection for critical industries like cars and pharmaceuticals.
end quote
And take note of that word “framework,” because the deal is hardly done, which again takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
That is half the rate Washington had threatened, though much more than Europeans hoped for.
end quote
And since the Europeans are in thrall to Donald Trump. they had to take the crumbs he deigned to throw at their feet, which again takes us back for more, to wit:
U.S. President Donald Trump, who has sought to leverage tariff threats to reshape global trade since returning to the White House this year, feted the accord on Sunday during a trip to Scotland, calling it “the biggest deal ever made”.
end quote
Uh, okay, Donald, of course it is, because you made it, and you only make deals when they are the greatest in the world or the biggest in the world, because you are Donald Trump and that is what Donald Trump does best, makes HUGELY deals, which takes us back to Reuters, to wit:
But France, Europe’s second largest economy, poured scorn on the agreement.
“It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission,” Prime Minister Francois Bayrou wrote on X.
end quotes
Just as it was, dude, back in 1938, when you and the Brits opened the mountain passes to the Bohemian plain, permitting Nazi troops to pass through unopposed, and thus making sure of a war in which they would not have Czechoslovakia as their ally, and Hitler would have Skoda, thereby handing the Sudetenland to Hitler, which was submission on steroids, especially since France had a treaty to defend Czechoslovakia, which they abrogated!
Getting back to today and Reuters, we have more, as follows:
While the mood among other European governments was decidedly sombre, most agreed that the failure to strike a deal would have been disastrous.
“This agreement has succeeded in averting a trade conflict that would have hit the export-orientated German economy hard,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who heads the 27-nation EU bloc’s largest economy.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, the top trade official for the European Commission, which negotiates trade deals for the EU, said allowing the 30% tariffs to be imposed would have been “much, much worse”.
“This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,” EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said.
Several EU countries acknowledged that the deal establishes some certainty with Europe’s biggest trading partner following months of turmoil, with Sweden, for example, calling it the “least bad alternative” and Spain backing it, albeit “without enthusiasm.”
Any final deal is likely to need approval from EU capitals.
end quotes
And stop right there, people, and focus on the words “any final deal is likely to need approval from EU capitals.”
So, is this a done deal as Trump says?
Or is that typical Trump hype and empty bluster and braggadocio?
Let’s go back to Reuters and see:
Since managing trade falls under the responsibilities of the European Commission, unhappiness with the outcome of the months-long negotiations from countries like France will not scupper the framework agreement.
But there is still work to be done.
Many of the specifics of the agreement were not immediately known, but EU officials said they would be clarified in a joint statement that should be finalised by August 1.
Further negotiations over the coming weeks will be held to reach a full-fledged deal.
Even Germany said more work was necessary, including with regards to the steel sector.
Trump said the deal, including an investment pledge topping the deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters.
Japan’s package will consist of equity, loans and guarantees from state-run agencies of up to $550 billion to be invested at Trump’s discretion, Tokyo says.
EU officials, in contrast, said the EU’s $600 billion investment pledge is based on the combined intended private-sector investments expressed by European companies.
The deal will bring clarity for European makers of cars, planes and chemicals.
But the EU had initially hoped for a zero-for-zero tariff deal.
And the 15% baseline tariff, while an improvement on the threatened rate of 30%, compares to an average U.S. import tariff rate of around 2.5% last year before Trump’s return to the White House.
“The 15% rate is better than the market was fearing,” said Jefferies economist Mohit Kumar.
Still, European companies were left wondering whether to cheer or lament the accord.
“Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm,” said Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association VCI.
“Further escalation has been avoided.”
“Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides.”
“European exports are losing competitiveness.”
“U.S. customers are paying the tariffs,” he said.
end quotes
Yes, people, despite anything the airhead Karoline Claire Leavitt, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025, might say to the contrary, since she hasn’t a clue as to what she does talk about, it is indeed the U.S. customers who are paying the tariffs, and that, people, happens to be us!
Stay tuned!
And before we get back to the absurdity Trump and company are dishing us up as our new reality today, since this is really all about the airhead Karoline Claire Leavitt, the scholarship softball player at Saint Anselm College who studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College and is now an American spokesperson who has served as the White House press secretary since 2025, and everything that she doesn’t know, which would make us fools if we took her word for anything, to see what Karoline is up to these days, let’s go to an article in The Mirror US titled “Karoline Leavitt ditches her Barbie glam and completely changes her look for Scotland visit” by Chiara Fiorillo on 29 July 2025, where we learn as follows, to wit:
Karoline Leavitt has ditched her Barbie glam as she completely changed her look while visiting Scotland with Donald Trump this week.
end quote
HUH?
Ditched her Barbie glam?
How can that be, people?
Is the world as we once knew it now going to end?
Will “ICE BARBIE” (Kristi Noem) now ditch her Barbie glam too in emulation of Karoline?
Going back to that earth-shaking story, it continues as follows:
The White House Press Secretary is accompanying the President during the visit, which has seen Trump open a new golf course at his Aberdeenshire resort.
After the opening, the President, who made a massive Epstein files radio blunder, said he would play a quick round before returning to Washington to “put out fires all over the world.”
end quotes
Trump is going to put out fires all over the world?
That’s a joke, since he is the one starting them, which takes us back to this poignant story of Karoline Leavitt ditching her Barbie glam, to wit:
In the morning, Karoline shared a selfie of herself in a casual look – different from her usual glam outfits.
In the photo, she was seen wearing a blue jumper with the American flag paired with a white sleeveless jacket.
It comes after a Trump family member revealed the latest chilling symptom of his cognitive decline and revealed he is “far gone”.
end quotes
Isn’t the Cape Charles Mirror so fun, people?
Look at all this world-shaking stuff we are learning in here that we wouldn’t learn about irf we were stuck with the NYT or Washington Post as our only choices.
Going back to the story of the transformation of Karoline Leavitt from a Barbie doll like “ICE BARBIE” Kristi Noem and her bo-toxed lips to blow them up a few sizes to make her pouts more meaningful and apparent, into something else, we have more as follows:
The press secretary, smiling at the camera, was seen holding a cup of coffee while walking with Scottish greenery in the background.
She wrote on the image, “Morning coffee walk to kick off another busy day!”
Some of her recent Instagram Stories also included Karoline enjoying fish and chips as well as tea and a croissant.
end quotes
And look at me in here, focused on turmoil and chaos caused by Trump, as opposed to focusing on Karoline Leavitt eating fish and chips as well as tea and a croissant.
Going back to the story, we have this, to wit:
Karoline is always elegant while working but lately she hasn’t been afraid to show her casual side too.
Last week, she shared a picture to Instagram of herself at a basketball game alongside US Special Assistant and Communications Advisor to President Donald Trump, Margot Martin.
Karoline shared the picture to mark Margot’s 30th birthday.
The 27-year-old opted for a casual and youthful look for the trip, a far cry from what her fans are used to seeing her wear when she is performing her duties in the White House.
Karoline wore her long blonde hair in a sleek straight style flowing over her shoulders, with white jeans and neon green vest top.
She accessorized her look with gold wedges and a gold bag, wearing a watch with a tan leather strap on her wrist.
Karoline and Margot both beamed confidently at the camera a they posed in the picture, which they both shared on the social media platform.
end quotes
And on that note, what is there left to say, other than stay tuned, for despite the fact that Karoline Leavitt no longer looks like a Barbie doll, there is still plenty of other news going on out there, so don’t touch that dial!