BOILING POINT: 1,400 arrested in France as Yellow Jacket Protests fester

A fourth weekend of protests in France turned violent once again on Saturday, with demonstrators in Paris laying siege to the city; burning cars and ripping down barricades from store fronts, while the riot police fired tear gas and water cannons to control the crowds.

The so-called Yellow Vests descended on the capital by the thousands, even as the police turned out in force, blocking off roads and monuments.

Nearly 1,400 people were arrested nationwide. In Paris, many were detained before they could even reach the central site of the demonstrations along Paris’s main artery, the Champs-Élysées.

The huge police presence in the capital — absent last Saturday — appeared far more able to contain the violence. The show of force reflected a change from preceding weeks, with law enforcement often engaging with the vandals before they could act.

“The situation is under control even though there are still some hot spots in the provinces,” Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said Saturday evening.

“The escalation of violence has been brought to a stopping point,” he added, crediting the more mobile strategy of the police. The violence, while contained, was “totally unacceptable,” he said.

The minister said 118 demonstrators and 17 police officers were injured nationwide on Saturday. Last week, about 200 protesters were injured, as well as more than 200 police officers, the interior ministry said.

Since the demonstrations began four weeks ago, four people have died.

The Yellow Vests take their name from the fluorescent hazard vests adopted by the protesters as a sign of their economic distress.

In the beginning, their ranks were filled by members of the working poor from rural areas and urban outskirts, who were dismayed by a planned increase in a fuel tax, which the government canceled this past week in a retreat.

But that did not quell the outrage, which has morphed into much broader anger at President Emmanuel Macron’s economic policies, and France’s declining living standards.

By midafternoon in Paris, more radical elements and professional vandal, known as “casseurs,” or “breakers”, had ripped down plywood barricades that had been placed over the windows of nearly every business in hopes of preventing smashing and looting. Reminiscent of AnTifa.

The Champs-Élysées was quickly covered in tear gas, and hundreds of people beat a hasty retreat down the avenue.

In some areas, the casseurs — young men dressed in black — could easily be distinguished from the Yellow Vests, often middle-aged men from the countryside.

In at least two instances on the Champs-Élysées, Yellow Vests replaced protective boards ripped down from shop windows by the casseurs.

And Yellow Vests looked on in horror and shock as vandals smashed in the windows of a sporting-goods store and made off with boxes of sneakers on an avenue around the Arc de Triomphe.

“This is just madness,” said a middle-aged Yellow Vest, Franck Morlat, a train driver who had traveled from central France. “Totally unacceptable.”

Others onlookers looked disgusted.

As protesters were smashing in windows with golf clubs, an ambulance driver and Yellow Vest who gave her name only as Stephanie said: “Sure it’s sad. But if it hadn’t come to this, nothing would change.”

The skirmishes were punctuated by shouts of “Macron Resign,” impromptu bursts of the French national anthem, and curses spat at the police and members of the news media.

Elsewhere in the city, a car burned out of control as the police moved in to chase away the vandals. A line of armored vehicles moved down a boulevard, trying to disperse stone-throwing casseurs and to break up barricades.

Police officers on horseback charged a group of vandals set to wreak havoc on a business-lined street at the edge of the historic Marais district.

At the start of the day in Paris, eight police vehicles blocked access to the Arc de Triomphe, a sacred national symbol that was defaced last weekend.

The police also showed up on demonstrators at the other end of the Champs-Élysées, near the seat of the French presidency and the Place de la Concorde.

Police detachments were set up at all major central Paris intersections. Stores and dozens of city buildings as well as most monuments and museums were closed, even those far from the protest areas, including the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and the Musée d’Orsay.

The city’s two opera houses canceled Saturday shows. More than 35 subway stops were closed.

City workers removed more than 2,000 metal gratings, construction barriers and other items to prevent them from being used as weapons or as barricades. Officials also recommended that people move their vehicles and bicycles from protest areas. Residents of many wealthier neighborhoods in Paris left as a precaution.

Elsewhere in France, the authorities also took steps to prevent violence.

The top French soccer league postponed six games across the country, including in Paris, Toulouse, Angers and Nîmes.

Museums were closed in Bordeaux, and the city of Lyon took extra security measures for its annual Light Festival.

Throughout Saturday, the drive of the protesters in Paris did not change, nor had their motivation.

“We drove all night,” said Julien Lezer, an electrician from the Var region, on the Mediterranean. “We don’t agree with the current system anymore; it doesn’t represent us.”

“It’s not in the regions that things change,” he continued. “It’s in Paris. It’s when the people from the regions go to Paris that the politicians listen.”

Axelle Cavalheiro, who works with disabled people, came from the Ain, near Lyon.

“We are overtaxed,” she said. “There are taxes on everything, gas.”

“At the Élysée,’’ she added, referring to the presidential palace, ‘‘they spend 300,000 euros on carpeting, 10,000 a month for the hairdresser.’’

Russian/Ukrainian Naval Skirmish leads to Cancelled G-20 Meeting between Trump and Putin

With Russia firing upon and capturing 3 Ukrainian vessels in an event that was started by Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, tensions between the United States, and the Russian Federation have increased. This skirmish led to 6 Ukrainian sailors getting injured, and 24 sailors now being detained. The Ukrainian Government, along with  many European politicians are now calling for sanctions against Russia for this event. Trump, along with others representing 20 nations at the G-20 Summit, were scheduled to meet in Buenos Aires, Argentina as part of the Group of 20 meeting. This international forum is meant for the governments of “the world’s major economies that seeks to develop global policies to address today’s most pressing challenges.” Essentially it consists of representatives of the world’s top economies, and allows them to share thoughts and strategies on how to manage financial issues on an international scale.

US President Donald Trump cancelled his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin citing the seizure of the Ukrainian ships and crew. Sanctions against Russia is something that may come up at the event, with Russia present. However, with Ukraine’s pleas of deploying NATO warships at a standoff with Russia. Russia claims that sanctions, and shows of force will solve nothing, and will only worsen relations with any nation participating in the sanctions.

This event has led to Ukraine enacting and enforcing martial law. The Ukrainian Government has enacted martial law in some areas, in response to many demanding martial law temporary enforced should Russia bring about any further actions, as well as demanding all diplomatic ties with Russia be severed.

With Trump arriving at the Summit, the goal was also to speak with other world leaders that hold conflicting interests due to the United States Government’s. This includes Trump’s meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping over easing tensions of arising trade conflicts, as well as the possibility of meeting with the Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the first time since the murderer of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Trump has announced to give the Saudi Prince a “Free pass”, referencing to his “America First” Policy, which cites as a possibly as a vital counterbalance with Iranian conflicts of interest in the Middle East.


By: Mike Jakub Klusa



Sadiq Khan Isn’t Tackling Childhood Obesity, He’s Actually Making It Worse

What exactly are the London Mayor’s priorities when it comes to tackling London’s major social and economical issues? Is it to stop knife crime and acid attacks? Is it to catch online peedophiles and sex traffickers? Is it to infiltrate not only radical mosques but all radical religious gatherings? (But let’s be honest, it’s almost always mosques). No. It’s to stop your child from becoming a fatass.

To state the obvious, if someone is clinically obese then they are at serious medical risk of having a heart attack or a stroke – let alone having to live with diabetes and/or high blood sugar. Obesity is bad! According to a study, the rate of men and women that die every year due to obesity closely contends with those who die due to smoking related illnesses. According to another study in the US, more people have died from obesity than smoking. Even simply being overweight contributed over a million deaths last year in the UK. So is obesity a big deal? Yes, by all means it’s a huge deal. But Sadiq Khan is doing anything but helping the epidemic.

Khan’s solution to childhood obesity is to take down fast food ads from the London Underground, make pizzas smaller, pack less biscuits in a pack of digestives (and blame Brexit whilst you’re at it), sugar tax fizzy drinks, ban milkshakes and ban TV advertisements that promote junk food. Nobody can tell for sure whether Khan is genuinely looking out for obese children or trying to create a distraction over the rise in crime in London. The reason this is questionable is because none of Sadiq Khan’s strategies actually work. Let’s start with consumerism.

When it comes to selling to children, they may not be the direct customer but simply just the consumer who indirectly receives the product. This is why most companies try and have their products aimed at the parents, considering they are normally the ones who make the payments when it comes to food, clothing and other essentials. So really, Sadiq Khan should be looking to advertise healthy living to the parents, instead of moving all McDonalds TV advertisements past 9pm. Same goes for making food smaller, anyone who is addicted to sugar will notice and just buy 2 products instead of one to make up for the size. Now they could considerably be taking in more calories. Also don’t forget those who prepare their own food at home. Sadiq Khan will never be able to ban that. The argument of sugar taxes were to prevent children drinking full fat cola and introducing a diet/sugar free version instead. The biggest issue with this is that those ‘harmless’ sugar free drinks contain high levels of sweeteners, which are far more liable to cause cancer. A recent study suggests that diet drinks can still make people fat – so well done Mr Khan, kids are now getting cancer and their BMI continues to dramatically ascend higher.

Some good ways to tackle childhood obesity is to tackle fast food with a similar strategy to cigarettes. Put OBESITY KILLS on boxes of Big Macs, start mass informing people and finding new and innovative ways of persuading children to live healthier, encourage parents to lead healthier lifestyles, help poorer communities find cheap ways to eat healthily, treat sugar addiction as a real condition, make fat shaming just as tolerable and acceptable in society as smoker shaming, hold healthy body sizes and realistic beauty standards in high esteem, shame lazy parents for not feeding their children healthily and so on. All of the above would work to some degree, but Sadiq Khan has a mindset where he feels the need to control people and assume that people listen to him regardless. Does he mean to have that mindset? Does he have any hidden agendas? It is up for debate.

By Damien Taylor

Chicago’s J.B. Pritzker’s Vehicle Mileage Tax is UNFAIR for those living in RURAL Illinois

The Illinois midterm election results for governor shows promises of tax increases for those living in the state, with the mileage tax being bought about. This new tax has been proposed as the state is becoming to realize as vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient, the already nearly bankrupt state is realizing that tax revenue from vehicles has slightly been dwindling. Now the state wishes to impose taxes for every mile driven, without regards to who drives, where they live, and whether or not their vehicle is already paying the recently increased motor fuel use tax from $0.307 to $0.324 on gasoline/gasohol per gallon, and $0.334 to $0.349 per gallon of diesel fuel which took effect on June 30th, 2018. There are also other fees drivers face such as Annual Vehicle Registration, Environmental Impact Fee, and fees for using tolls. This new Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT) has been implemented in Oregon on a volunteer pilot program, promising drivers higher returns on their taxes to compensate for reimbursement on the gas mileage tax, however this has not been outlined in Pritzker’s plan The Oregon Pilot program for the VMT has reported success, however the reporting didn’t take into account that drivers in rural areas drive off-road on many occasions, many times to cultivate their land. The reason Pritzker stated the VMT would benefit Illinois, is it will increase Illinois tax revenue on money used to build and maintain roads, both which depend on the Motor Fuel Use Tax. Pritzker later recanted this statement saying he denied ever proposing a new law in regards with this tax. Furthermore, the tax fails to acknowledge the fact that the options available are a GPS option, which many argue violates privacy, and the odometer option which doesn’t account for out of state travel, or driving on private land/roads. DuPage County has voted on whether or not the county should oppose property tax increases by 1%, and whether or not the county should oppose the proposed Vehicle Mileage Tax.

The main reason many people of rural Illinois will be put under pressure due to this tax is they drive significantly farther distances for going to work or simply going to the grocery store, where as those living in urban areas have greatly expanded forms of public transportation, and everything ranging from stores to where people work, is usually close by. In rural areas, some people will be driving miles to reach a destination that may very well be within walking distance for someone living in an urban area. The concern for this new tax is to account for the fact that some drive more on a road, leading to wear and tear. However, in rural areas, the roads are not exposed to vehicles nearly as much as the roads in the city of Chicago, which leads to much less wear-and-tear on the roads in rural areas, yet drivers in rural areas will still be paying for road destruction when the roads they primarily don’t see nearly as much road maintenance as those of urban areas.

The State of Illinois is notorious for tax hikes, and Pritzker has been labeled as the “Porcelain Prince” for disabling all of the toilets in one of his mansions to avoid tax payment on the property as a home. This same person has now been elected as the Governor of Illinois, a politician who spent $47.4 million on his campaign, twice as much as his opponent Bruce Rauner who spent 26.7 million. He has now outranked the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in terms of wealth, at a net worth of $3.2 billion.

-Mike Jakub Klusa


Britain’s National service of Remembrance 100 years on!

104 years ago, when the first world war began, six million young men set out to defend and save our country; not only that, but by the end of WW1, 5,734,000 British, French, American and Russian men were killed, sacrificing their lives and futures for the sake of Britain’s future at the time and our futures now and the futures of generations to come.

At the beginning of 1918, Germany was in an extremely strong position and was  expected to win the war. However, thanks to British, American, French and Russian soldiers, by the end of that year the tables had turned.

One hundred years ago to this day, at 5am, Germany was forced to sign the Armistice which is an agreement for no more fighting and total peace.

Six hours later on the 11th hour, on the 11th day and on the 11th month, this agreement came into effect. Ever since that day at that exact time, there is a national two minute silence to remember our fallen men, women and children and to remember this day. This day is still is a huge victory for Britain and our alliances.

Today marks the 100th anniversary of the Armistice agreement and our soldiers victory.
10,000 people that were chosen by ballot to pay their respects and walk in the parade past the Cenotaph. Hundreds of thousands of people also attended the National Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph today to watch the parade and celebrate this very rare occasion. It may be a once in a life time opportunity to see.

Image result for remembrance sunday parade 2018

The Prince of Wales, (Prince Charles) led our nation in remembering all of our fallen soldiers and to celebrate this special day. He started the ceremony off by laying the first wreath on the Cenotaph in behalf of himself and the Queen.

The Prince of Wales laying the wreath at the Cenotaph this morning


Germany’s president, Frank Walter Steinmeier joined Prince Charles at the ceremony which marked the first ever reconciliation between Britain and Germany.


The Queen watched from a balcony at the Foreign Commonwealth office, she was accompanied by Kate Middleton the Duchess of Cambridge and Camilla Duchess of Cornwall.

Image result for the queen remembrance sunday 2018


Politicians from all around the world attended Britain’s National Service today showing respect for both our country’s fallen soldiers and their countries fallen soldiers, many more are/ will be attending other services in other countries around the world in different time zones. Not only that but there were remembrance services in every village, town and city across our nation.

The Queen, Prince Charles, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall are attending a special memorial this evening at Westminster Abbey.

Lest we forget our fallen soldiers that died for the future of others.

By Alissa Cook-Gray



David Cameron wants back into politics?

David Cameron, age 52, resigned from his position as Prime Minister on the 23rd of June 2016 after he called a referendum to see what the general public wanted to do regarding our position in the EU, leave or stay. Cameron was hoping for the majority to vote stay and when he didn’t get the result he wanted he stepped down and left our country in a mess, which was a cowardly move as we are still facing the backlash of his actions.

Recently Cameron has decided that he wants back into politics as the Foreign Secretary, reports say this is because he is “bored sh#tless.”

For this to happen, Theresa May has to be removed from her position as PM which is already more than likely to happen. Not only are the general public fed up of her antics but several other politicians are fed up as well. Theresa May has proposed a 12 month brexit extension which there is no need for, yet again she is trying to prolong the inevitable. This extension will also cost billions of pounds in EU fees which as usual the general  public will be paying for in taxes. Conservative MPs have now told May to ditch her plans and make way for a new leader.


Not only does May have to resign for Cameron to be the foreign secretary but he also has to go through either a by-election or a general election, so if the general public have any sense at all they will not vote Cameron back in.

There is a massive shortage of qualified, logical leaders in the UK and David Cameron is on of the majority that is neither qualified to the level we need him to be nor logical. We need a leader that can see through the corrupt ways of our country.

Photograph by :Graham Flack/Red Sky Shepherds Huts/PA
Cameron has done enough damage, so if he his to be voted back in should he take charge of cleaning up the mess he has made and make us a clean break from the EU?
By Alissa Cook-Gray



Another four Huddersfield men convicted with grooming young girls!

Another four men from Huddersfield have been convicted with sexual assault, forcing children to engage sexual activity, trafficking for sexual exploitation and assault committing severe bodily harm.

Mohammed Akram, Niaz Ahemed, Mohammed Imrani brar and Asif Bashir. The four men, convicted with ten offences from 2004 to 2010, were sentenced on Thursday at Leads Crown Court and, between the four of them, have been sentenced for a total of 36 years.


This followed a case earlier this week where seven men were found guilty of abusing young girls.

The four men found guilty on Thursday have been found to be a part of the 20 man grooming gang that has been convicted for further grooming and abuse. This makes the total sentence for the 20 gang members 257 years.


These are the Men that Tommy Robinson at the end of May this year, got arrested for reporting on because he “jeopardized the case.” Not in one way, shape or form did Tommy jeopardize the case, if the establishment want to point the finger at anyone it should be the BBC in the first place for publishing the article he was reading out loud. In a normal world, that would be the case. However, we live in a world where the establishment is ready to silence anybody that is willing to challenge their poor actions – despite obvious double standards.


The judge told the four men that quote, “The way that you treated these girls defies understanding, this abuse was vile and wicked.” So how is three to 17 years in jail serving these horrible sick animals justice? It simply is not.

From 2004 and 2010, these men continuously abused 15 girls. On Thursday, Leeds Crown Court was told how some of the girls were plied with drugs and alcohol before being abused against their will.

The leader of the group, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, age 36, Huddersfield, was given a life sentence with a minimum term of 18 years by a judge at Leeds Crown Court earlier this year in June. He alone had been convicted of 22 rapes with 11 different girls.

Amere Singh Dhaliwal

After the 4 Huddersfield men were charged on Thursday, it makes the total sentence for the 20 gang members 257 years. On average, this makes each defendants sentence 12.8 years, it is just not enough because by then there is a huge chance they may re offend upon release – due to the resentment withheld in prison. It may also be a question of how religiously devoted these Islamic grooming gangs are and how literally they take the passages in the Quran and whether they would go as far as to die for their creed.

So again… I ask: is now the time to bring back the death penalty in the UK and is deportation necessary to stop these evil men?

By Alissa Cook-Gray





Sex offenders on our streets!

Sex offences have and still are rising astronomically in the UK. Statistics show that over the past ten years the number of registered sex offenders living in the community has risen by more than 80 percent. Between 2006 and 2007, the number of rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders in the UK, was 30,416. Ten years later (2016-2017), the number has risen to 55,236 sex offenders living in the UK supposedly living under police supervision and other probation services that the general government are paying for through tax. However, how supervised are these sex offenders?

Matthew Falder is one terrific example of a sex offender within the UK. Branded “one of Britain’s most prolific paedophiles. He was sentenced to 30 years for blackmailing his online victims into sending him pictures that are deemed as degrading. He also forced his victims into attacking, raping and assaulting others. Due to the UK justice system being fairly relaxed, Matthew will probably serve around half of his sentence… But what will happen when he is released?

A white Sheffield sex grooming gang, who forced a 15 year old girl into having sex with around 40 men for money, got jailed for a total of 30 years. The gang consisted of three brothers, Chris Whiteley aged 23, Matthew Whiteley aged 25 and Shane Whiteley aged 30. Their awful crime consisted of supplying a 15 year old girl with drugs and alcohol and then continued on to forcing her to have sex with around 40 men for unwanted money at the end of each assault. Chris received 15 years, Matthew received seven years and Shane received eight years, of which they will most likely only serve half of their sentences. So again begs the question, what happens to these awful criminals after they’re released?

Sex offenders that are cautioned, or just released from prison, are added to the sex register. The sex register has every offender from 10th September 1997, when the register first came about. Sex offenders have to register within three days of any cautions or release dates and then they must continue registration on a set basis. Sex offenders that are sentenced with any jail sentence from 30-months to life after they’re release means that they will have to indefinitely register. Jail sentences that are between six to 30 months, after release the offenders have to register for ten years and any sentence below six months, the offender has to register for up to seven years.

Victim helplines:
Rape Crisis:
Helpline: 0808 802 9999 (12-2:30 and 7-9:30)
Helpline: 0808 800 5000 (24 hours, every day)

The problem is that this system doesn’t necessarily stop offenders from offending again. Between 2017 and 2018, 12 sex offenders, of which were previously registered in the West Midlands, were charged with further major offences. Situations like this are constantly getting worse and are happening more and more often justice is just not being served to these awful monsters so the main question now is, is the only way to stop this, the death penalty?
As stated, this is constantly increasing so instead of sitting by and watching WE need to do something!

By Alissa Cook-Gray


Is fear of automation merely neo-Luddite sentiment or legitimate concern?

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Insight – Pew Research published new findings on Thursday about public expectations for automation by computers and robots on the future job market in ten countries across the world. The countries investigated were Greece, Italy, Poland and Hungary in Europe; Canada and the U.S. in North America; Brazil and Argentina in South America; and South Africa and Japan in Africa and Asia respectively.

Chart showing that most think robots and computers will take over many jobs now done by humans

On the question of whether they expected robots and computers to take over many jobs during the next fifty years, US citizens were the most optimistic, with only 65% saying it would “probably” or “definitively” happen. On the top, we find Greece, Japan and Canada with 91%, 89% and 84% respectively. Greeks and South Africans were the most certain, at 52% and 45% of their populations respectively who claimed that such a transformation would definitely happen.

For most asked during the polling in almost all countries, the downsides significantly outweighed the upsides. They were presented with two potential downsides and two upsides: (1) people would have a harder time finding jobs, (2) the [wealth] inequality between rich and poor would be much worse than it is today, (3) the economy would be more efficient and (4) there would be new, better-paying jobs.

An average of 80% thought the first scenario was likely, with only 17 percentage points between the highest (Greece – 91%) and the lowest (Japan and Hungary – 74%). The second had a bit more differentiation, with only 63% of Italians and up to 87% of Greeks believing wealth inequality would worsen with automation. Still, almost 77% of citizens across the ten countries thought on average that this would be an important factor in the trend.

Far less had confidence in the propositions in (3) and (4). 74% and 61% of Japanese people and Poles, respectively, thought it was likely that the economy would become more efficient with automation, but this confidence wasn’t commonplace in other countries. 6 countries had less than 50% of its citizens thinking this was likely to happen, whereof 3 had less than 40%. Least confident were Italians, with only 33% thinking it was probable. People were even more pessimistic about the last scenario, with no country having more than 47% believing it was likely that automation would bring new and better-paying jobs to the market. Here, again, Italians are the least confident, with only 24%, but the Americans aren’t much different, with 25%. The only country with more confidence than Brazil and Poland, both with 37%, is Canada, at 47%.

Charts showing that publics are more convinced of the downsides than potential upsides of job automation

Richard Wike and Bruce Stokes, the authors of the report, also showed that whether the person asked believes the current economic situation is good or bad is a statistically Chart showing that those satisfied with current economy are more likely to have a positive view of job automationsignificant factor in the results.

The findings, overall, however, appears to be that people generally believe the downsides outweigh the upsides with automation, which begs the question: Will it?

To answer this key question, we must first look at whether this threat has at any time appeared before. Indeed, it did quite much so during the peak of the industrial revolution in England.

The latter half of the 18th century saw great technological innovation: the water wheel, the spinning jenny, the steam engine, etc. This was the beginning of what would eventually become part of the cause of increased economic prosperity and life expectancy rates. But this did not occur instantly. The English working class suffered under the transition, though, according to some historians, it was largely due to the Napoleonic wars, with food getting scarcer and more costly (Sidenote: just the conditions needed for Marx to get people to buy into his doctrine). Even under these poor conditions, some people still worried that machines could make it even worse as they would put them out of a job. The group known to be most serious about this threat were the Luddites. The Luddites was a radical group of textile workers and weavers, most active between 1811 and 1817, who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. They had to fight against the British Army several times, but one time it got so far that there were more soldiers fighting the Luddites and other domestic protesters than Napoleon at the Iberian peninsula. The time they used to learn the skills necessary for their jobs, they thought, would go to waste as machinery would replace their role.

They were right, of course, but I don’t think many today would with hindsight say the downsides of the industrial revolution exceeded the upsides. After all, the life expectancy rate in the United Kingdom has doubled from 40 in 1800 to 81.2 today, a trend with most other countries following suit.


The key to understanding this phenomenon is what is often termed as “creative destruction.” Creative destruction, first described by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, is the “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” This happens when an innovation changes the traditional arrangements and frees resources to be used elsewhere. The labour and resources would no longer be useful in one arena and thus transferred to another where they are more needed. However, this redeployment will not happen immediately after they’re put out of work, which makes rapid automation a legitimate concern.

David Rotman delineates the parallel for Technology Review:

At least since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s, improvements in technology have changed the nature of work and destroyed some types of jobs in the process. In 1900, 41 percent of Americans worked in agriculture; by 2000, it was only 2 percent. Likewise, the proportion of Americans employed in manufacturing has dropped from 30 percent in the post–World War II years to around 10 percent today—partly because of increasing automation, especially during the 1980s.

However, he quotes Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist who has done extensive research into how technological advances have affected jobs over the last decades, claims that there is no historical pattern which suggests that it leads to a net decrease in jobs over an extended period of time. “While it can take decades for workers to acquire the expertise needed for new types of employment,” he says, “we never have run out of jobs. There is no long-term trend of eliminating work for people. Over the long term, employment rates are fairly stable. People have always been able to create new jobs. People come up with new things to do.” Katz expects this trend to follow in the future but concedes that there is something different about today’s digital technologies that could potentially affect a broader range of work. “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?” Rotman rhetorically asks in his reportage, “Will the job disruptions caused by technology be temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we see a science-fiction scenario in which automated processes and robots with superhuman skills take over a broad swath of human tasks?” Thus we’re back to where we started. Will it?

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee claim to have proof that the current technological advance does, in fact, destroy jobs faster than it is creating them. The two infographics pages to the right illustrate the problem. The first graph shows that U.S. productivity and employment have been more or less congruent during the 20th century, but diverged in the 2000s, what they call “the great decoupling.” Brynjolfsson is certain that this is because of technological change, but there’s no consensus among economists as to the cause of this great decoupling.

We can see an even greater divergence between U.S. GDP per capita and household income. For those who don’t know, GDP per capita means total output (the value of all finished goods and services) divided by the number of citizens in the country. Its divergence from average household income can easily be explained by technological advance making the economy more efficient but doesn’t say as much as the former graph about the degree to which jobs are being replaced. This should, however, disprove the claim that automation doesn’t lead to the economy being more efficient, point (3) in the Pew poll.

The second page tells us a bit more. Workers in the first and last percentile of skill have increased most in the change in share of employment, with .2% and .3%, respectively. The middle, however, doesn’t appear to have changed much. Those from 50 to 80 in the skill percentile have barely increased their shares at all, and those from 10 to 50 have seen their share decreased.

On the right on the page, we also see an overview of the vulnerable and fastest growing jobs. 8/10 of the fastest-growing jobs have to do with computer systems, networks, and software, showing the bright side of creative destruction, but again, we have to recall their argument that jobs are being depleted faster than they are created.

We’ll conclude by looking over the legitimacy of the four propositions laid out in the Pew poll but in opposite order.

  1. There would be new, better-paying jobs.
    • On the table with the fastest-growing jobs, we see that most of them are caused by technological advance, working the wonders of creative destruction. To figure out whether these are better-paying jobs than the ones who are being replaced would require its own thorough analysis, which is beyond the scope of this study. In other words, there will be new jobs, but whether these are better-paying is uncertain.
  2. The economy would be more efficient.
    • Brynjolffson and McAfee’s statistics indicate that technological advances increase productivity, especially in the 2000s, though the latest decoupling has split the line between that and employment. An increase in productivity is a strong indicator of the economy as a whole getting more efficient.
  3. The [wealth] inequality between rich and poor would be much worse than it is today.
    • There’s been a great amount of talk about inequality lately, especially since Piketty’s publication of Capital in the 21st Century in 2011. His research had great influence on the attention of the entire economist community on the trend, but he also received a lot of critiques (see: Anti-Piketty). If we accept his proposition of growing inequality, however, how does technology work as a factor? Rotman writes in another Technology Review article connecting the lines between Piketty’s and Brynjolfsson’s work:

      Brynjolfsson lists several ways that technological changes can contribute to inequality: robots and automation, for example, are eliminating some routine jobs while requiring new skills in others (see “How Technology is Destroying Jobs”). But the biggest factor, he says, is that the technology-driven economy greatly favors a small group of successful individuals by amplifying their talent and luck, and dramatically increasing their rewards.

      Brynjolfsson argues that these people are benefiting from a winner-take-all effect originally described by Sherwin Rosen in a 1981 paper called “The Economics of Superstars.” Rosen said that such breakthroughs as motion pictures, radio, and TV had greatly broadened the audiences—and hence the rewards—for those in show business and sports. Thirty years later, Brynjolfsson sees a similar effect for high-tech entrepreneurs, whose ideas and products can be widely distributed and produced thanks to software and other digital technologies. Why hire a local tax consultant when you can use a cheap, state-of-the-art program that is constantly being updated and refined? Likewise, why buy a second-best program or app? The ability to copy software and distribute digital products anywhere means customers will buy the top one. Why use a search engine that is almost as good as Google? Such economic logic now rules a growing share of the marketplace; it is, according to Brynjolfsson, an increasingly important reason why a few entrepreneurs, including the founders of such startups as Instagram, are growing rich at a staggering rate.

      The distinction between Piketty’s supermanagers and Brynjolfsson’s superstars is critical: the latter derive their high incomes directly from the effects of technology. As machines increasingly substitute for labor and building a business becomes less capital-intensive—you don’t need a printing plant to produce an online news site, or large investments to create an app—the biggest economic winners will not be those owning conventional capital but, instead, those with the ideas behind innovative new products and successful business models.

      This appears to indicate an increase in inequality, but the exact impact technology has on it calls for its own study, and is not certain based on the citations from Brynjolffson. Daron Acemoglu wrote a paper for the NBER in 2003, saying “This consensus is built on the notion of technology-skill complementarity: technical change favors more skilled (educated) workers, replaces tasks previously performed by the unskilled, and increases the demand for skills. Consequently, many commentators see a direct causal relationship between technological changes and these radical shifts in the distribution of wages taking place in the U.S. economy. … These considerations imply that technical change that increases the demand for skills can have much amplified effects on inequality, because it also will change labor market institutions and preferences towards redistribution.” As Acemoglu argues against other factors, such as globalization, I’ll judge this fear legitimate, though I think fiscal policy will have an influence on its significance (P.S. The degree to which inequality as such is bad de facto is also up for debate).

  4.  People would have a harder time finding jobs:
    • This is the million dollar question. In making such a forecast we can not say anything for certain, we can only think in probabilities. According to Brynjolfsson, the jobs are running out faster than they are creating because of the technological impact delineated in his and Acemoglu’s work. On the other hand, Katz expects things to go alright as it has before. Brynjolfsson and Acemoglu make a strong case for why creative destruction, as a result of technological advance, might, in this case, be leading to more jobs being replaced than created. High-skill work and creativity is in high demand and appears to only get more so as manufacturing jobs get automized. A net decrease in work will make it more difficult to find a job, but the different kinds of work demanded also calls for a reform in what is taught and how in the education system, though that’s a topic of study on its own. Anyway, as the job market changes, the education system must adapt accordingly.

We’ve here seen that much of the concern about the downsides of automation have proven more or less legitimate, that the current situation is significantly different from that during the industrial revolution, and that the economic upsides have been underestimated. Creative destruction has produced great benefits in the aftermath of the first industrial revolution, but today jobs seem to disappear faster than they are created. The technological change has increased economic output but at expense of an increase in wealth inequality by especially targetting low-skilled jobs, and increases the demand for high-skill labour. Between 1980 and 2005, the share of employment by the most low-skilled employees still increased, indicating a feud between theory and data, but the statistics still show that much of low-skilled labour is on the decline. If there were only the market involved in the process, it would be simpler to make a forecast on what would happen in the future, but as the government intervenes, for the better or worse, the trend could go a lot of different ways depending on what incentives are put in place and which legislation is passed to address the issue. Should we trust Congress to act fairly and effectively? Despite being constantly pushed by lobbyists for this and that, we should hope so, and have a debate about what suggestions could work and should be set in place, and advocate them to be instated.

Brexit Britain: Unemployment at its Lowest since 1975

The Office of National Statistics revealed this week that unemployment stands at 4%, the lowest rate since 1975.

The latest figures show there were just 1.36 million adult Brits out of work in July, therefore indicating the process of Brexit is not having a negative impact on the country’s economy.

Youth unemployment is also at its lowest since records began in 1992.



Land Expropriation in South Africa Begins, UK Foreign Office Backs Policy in Leaked Email

Land expropriation has officially begun in South Africa this week.

The African National Congress government is now seizing land from white farmers, in particular two properties in the province of Limpopo after talks with the owners to purchase the farms collapsed.

Akkerland Boerdery requested their land’s value of 200 million Rand ($14.1m) so they could afford to survive without the private property, but the government offered just a tenth of that. Now the farms will be taken without consent or compensation.

These are just two or 139 farms on a leaked list of the government’s first targets. Reported originally by South African-based media outlet City Press, this bundle of expropriations will act as a test run of Section 25 of the constitution.

Implementation has commenced six months after it was approved by the multi-party Parliament, and just as former President Jacob Zuma was replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa.

Katie Hopkins is one of the few British political figures discussing the implementation of land expropriation policy, credit: Twitter

This is the goal the Black First Land First political party, who frequently display the slogan, “Land or Death”, has been advocating for.

In addition to this, the South African government has been touring the country asking the public their view on whether the constitutional amendment should be finalized. Since the nation’s racial demographics consist of an 8% white population and a 92% black population (FACT CHECK), the electorate swing overwhelmingly in favour of the land expropriation policy.

Meanwhile in Europe, despite the EU urging its member-states to accept Syrian refugees fleeing from their country’s humanitarian crisis, the same standard need not apply for white South Africans. The continent has maintained its silence on land expropriation as it commences.

President Ramaphosa and ANC Deputy Mabuza wave to supporters, credit: Reuters

In addition, the United Kingdom’s Minister of State in the Foreign Office Harriett Baldwin has clarified the nation’s support for the actions of the South African government.

After Conservative MP Paul Beresford inquired what the UK’s position is on behalf of a concerned constituent, the Minister of State emailed the following response.

‘The British government understands the need for land reform in South Africa’, and Ramaphosa’s promise that “the process of land [re]distribution would be orderly within South African laws … without negatively affecting economic growth, agricultural production and food security” is “welcomed”.

This email was subsequently passed onto the constituent, who leaked the contents to Breitbart London.

Minister of State for the UK Foreign Office Harriett Baldwin, credit: Malvern Magazine

While Ramaphosa may insist white-owned land can be confiscated without “deterring investment”, when the policy was announced investors were immediately alarmed. The South African Rand, the national currency, plummeted overnight to 13.40 per U.S. dollar. And the ever-increasing rate of unemployment hit 27.2% early this month.

Now expropriation has began implementation, who knows how further the economy will be disadvantaged, or more worrying, on how many occasions will the human rights of land-owning farmers be violated.

James Comey’s Warning To Democrats of Avoiding Socialism Falls on Deaf Ears

Written by Stefan M. Kløvning

Washington D.C. – Former FBI Director James Comey, known for his influence in FBI’s investigation of potential Russian interference in the 2016 election, warned his fellow Democrats on Sunday to avoid Socialism and self-proclaimed Socialists such as Ocasio-Cortez and to rather strive for a “sensible, balanced and ethical leadership.”

Comey was a longtime Republican prior to Trump’s rise and moved over to the Democratic Party under the last election campaign, claiming that the “Republican party has left me, and many others,” in adhering to Trump’s tactics and politics that deviated from what he perceived as “fulfilling the Founders’ design that ‘ambition must … counteract ambition,'” and called for the American people to vote Democrat in the mid-term elections.

Much of Comey’s convictions may be of his own accord, but his milieu appears to have influenced him moving leftwards politically.  After all, his wife is an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, along with four of their daughters, who participated in the Women’s March succeeding Trump’s inauguration. This may have influenced his several self-admitted “mistakes” under the 2016 investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server she used when she was Secretary of State. It didn’t stop Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, however, from calling Comey the “leading Republican political operative in the country,” for leading the investigation. In fact, he’s been hated by members of both sides of the spectrum after having participated in what has been perceived as a witch-hunt of both candidates for President in 2016. Now he appears to be a never-Trump Democrat, however, like his father, who told CNN in May 2017 that he thought Trump “should be impeached immediately. He’s a very incompetent guy. He’s out of his league. I think the man should be in a home quite honestly, he’s crazy as a hoot.”

Despite the legitimate concerns Comey may now have for the future of the Democratic party and its constituents, knowledge of his background has caused many Democrats to completely disregard his advice as worthless.

For instance, National Security Council Spokesman of President Obama, Tommy Vietor, responded to Comey, commenting on his judgement:

Progressive Democrat candidate for US Congress, Bill Cimbrelo, accused Comey of hypocrisy, along with many other vile accusations:

Dem strategist Zac Petkanas’ response was a tad more insulting:

Much of the rest falls on deaf ears…

… but some are still willing to listen.

According to Rasmussen Reports, only 13% of Americans believe that Socialism is a better economic system than Capitalism, but with Bernie Sanders’ large support during the 2016 primary elections, and Ocasio-Cortez’ victory in the NY primaries, many more Democrats appear to slide over to Socialism or at least view Socialism in a more positive light amid calls for free education, healthcare and housing, often confusing the terms “social democracy” and “Democratic Socialism.” Scandinavian countries, for instance, are often pointed to by supporters of the latter, while those countries, in reality, are social democracies whose welfare is built on the wealth produced by Capitalism.

It’s difficult to say how much opposition Ocasio-Cortez stands before against her Republican adversary Anthony Pappas in the general election on 6 November, considering he ran unopposed for the seat within his party. What appears to be the case, however, is that Socialism is gaining steam among left-wing reactionaries against Trump, along with its political promises for the youth and the poor of what they will supposedly gain by electing its candidates. Referring to the Democrats echo of Ocasio-Cortez’ call to “abolish ICE” and end immigration enforcement, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Breitbart last week that ““I don’t really refer to it as the Democratic Party anymore. This has become the New Socialist Democratic Party,” opining that the party has already fallen to the Socialism of Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders.

END THE FED: Pres. Trump criticizes, prepares to alter the Federal Reserve

Written by: Jack Bibiano  –  Twitter: @LibertyDragon1  – Facebook: Juan Bibiano

Trump is channeling his inner-Ron Paul in his criticisms of the Federal Reserve. The astonishing thing is, he may be able to actually change it. Analysis of the policies implemented by the Federal Reserve during the Trump administration reveals a potential bias. Trump has taken this opportunity to break a presidential norm by commenting on the policies of the Federal Reserve. “So somebody would say, ‘Oh, maybe you shouldn’t say that as president. I couldn’t care less what they say, because my views haven’t changed,” Trump said.

Immediately after the election of President Barack Obama, on December 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve. lowered the Fed Funds rate by an entire percent, from 1% down to 0%. The Fed had not lowered the Fed Funds rate by such a large amount (1% ) since at least before 1990, if ever. The Fed kept this 0% rate for most of Obama’s eight years in office.


President Obama oversaw seven years of the most accommodative monetary policy in U.S. history from the Federal Reserve. The Fed Funds rate was at a shocking-low zero for the great majority of Obama’s time in office. Finally, in December 2015 after the Fed announced its first increase in the Fed Funds rate during the Obama Presidency. Even that was only an increase of 0.25 percent.

Although Obama benefited from the lowest possible interest rates possible for seven of his eight years, he still doubled the US Debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.  If Trump got the same special treatment Obama did, and there were no rate increases in interest rates, President Trump would have a balanced budget by now.

The only Fed Funds Rate increases since 2015 were after President Trump was elected President. The Fed increased the Fed Funds Rate six times.

20180625-Fed-Funds rate.png

The “Fed Funds Rate” greatly impacts the economy. This is due to the fact that lower interest rates make borrowing easier, thus usually spurring the economy by making corporate and consumer borrowing easier. Higher interest rates, however, are intended to slow down the economy by making borrowing harder.

Increases in the Fed Funds Rate increase the cost of borrowing, and the U.S. Government is by far the largest borrower in the world. With $20 trillion in debt, a 1% increase in interest payments equals about $200 billion in annual interest payment increases.

President Trump acknowledges this, in an interview with CNBC, and says he’s not happy with the raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve and suggested the central bank is working at cross purposes with his administration’s economic program.

In spite of calling Jerome Powell(Chairman of the Fed), whom he picked to replace Janet Yellen, a “good man” Trump said he didn’t care that he was breaking a precedent under which presidents do not comment on the Fed so as to safeguard its independence.

“So somebody would say, ‘Oh, maybe you shouldn’t say that as president. I couldn’t care less what they say, because my views haven’t changed,” Trump said.

“Because we go up and every time you go up they want to raise rates again. I don’t really — I am not happy about it. But at the same time, I’m letting them do what they feel is best.” He continued, “But I don’t like all of this work that goes into doing what we’re doing.”…“I don’t like all of this work that we’re putting into this economy and then I see rates going up,” Trump said.

Second-quarter GDP is estimated to run at an annual rate of at least 4%.

The only thing stopping President Trump from balancing the US Budget and keeping the economy on fire is the Fed’s rising rates. The Fed seems to be playing politics.

However, Trump may have the opportunity to change this. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. Currently, It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are stilling awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more members to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump. The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Except for the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

The alteration and even audit of the Federal Reserve could spell certain doom for players in the upper echelon of governments that have taken advantage of the policies for personal gain.

Trump Exacerbates Controversy Among World Leaders Following Free-Trade Demands

Written by: Stefan M. Kløvning

International Relations – Most of us has by now seen the widely circulating picture of world leaders confronting Trump on the second day of the G7 summit in Quebec, Canada, but exactly what it signals has become rather controversial. Those on the left side of politics, and in opposition to Trump think of it as a united front confronting a bully, whereas his proponents perceive it as an illustration of him standing up for American interests, and that America is the one in power. The summit itself, however, was far beyond mere signaling. He suddenly flipped completely on trade, advocated fully tariff-free trade between the countries attending, and threatened to cut off all trade with countries with ‘robbing’ the ‘piggy bank’ of the United States by means of tariffs. He also abruptly rejected the consensus statement, making a communique highly unlikely, and accused the host (Trudeau) of lying in a press conference after the summit. Though he still perceives everything to be going bliss between the countries, many of them have taken a different view.

Trump claims that the current tariffs initiated against other countries are merely in response to the tariffs put on the United States, like with India, whom he claims has a 100% tariff on some products and Canada 270% on dairy. What this means is simply that he will reduce tariffs only when everyone else does it, rather than lead by example, and what’s more, threaten to end trade with those who don’t. Trump has for long been complaining about the trade deficit the United States has with China, but responding to Macron’s suggestion of ‘Let’s work together, we both have a China problem,’ he exclaimed that the European Union is even worse, according to a source in the room. He also went on ranting about EU’s car tariffs. According to a factsheet by the EU, they charge 10% on U.S. cars, whereas the U.S. only charge 2.5% on car imports from the EU. The short 2015 report also told that it was a goal for EU to reduce tariffs. Trump’s urgency and demands in the reduction of individual tariffs, however, is feared to be damaging to international relations. Some commentators have even opined that in taking this aggressive approach, he’s undermining Western cooperation and ‘tries to destroy the West.’

Several world leaders have spoken out about their thoughts on Trump’s demands in the aftermath of the summit. French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron, for instance, wrote that ‘In the , President Trump saw that he had a united front in front of him. To find themselves isolated in a concert of Nations is contrary to American history.’ Angela Merkel spoke of Trump’s behavior as ‘sobering and depressing,’ but Theresa May took a lighter approach. Though having been excluded from Trump’s name check of his allies, she said Britain has a good relationship with him and defended his decision to leave early to reach the summit with North Korea in Singapore.

Despite the controversy, Trump still rates his relationships to the other countries as ‘a 10,’ responding to a CNN journalist in a press conference after the summit. Trudeau primarily, but also other countries, have a rather different perspective in the aftermath of the summit.

America First: Trump stands up for U.S, best interests at G7, destroys “Fake News CNN”

Written by: Jack Bibiano  –  Follow me on Twitter: @LibertyDragon1  –  Add me on Facebook: Juan Bibiano

          These past few weeks have been quite the amazing ones for President Trump as he completely humiliated critics with unbelievably good job numbers, warmed the hearts of millions with a pardon he gave, asserted American interests at G7, and completely destroyed “Fake news CNN”. Now Trump is getting called out by a big figurehead in the E.U. for “undermining” the world order started by US a long time ago. I think what this gentleman was trying to say, is that Trump is completely rebuking the global elite in their scheme to bring down America from the inside.

          “I would say that our relationship is a 10” Trump said, after “Fake news CNN” asks completely loaded question about G7 Summit, which suggested America’s relationship with world leaders is heavily damaged. The reporter began the dialogue by saying “As you were heading into these G7 talks, there was this sense that uh, America’s closest allies were frustrated and angry at you, and you were angry at them. I was wondering if you view it the same way.”

          Trump then asked the reporter “Who are you with, out of curiosity?” who then replied that he was from CNN. “I figured,” Trump said. “Fake News CNN. The worst.”. Trump goes on to say that he has good relations with each leader and that he doesn’t blame them. He blames previous U.S. leaders. “They have no choice. I’ll be honest with you, they have no choice.” Trump says in regards to renegotiating trade deals

          “So, we’re negotiating, very hard, tariffs and barriers. As an example, the European Union is brutal to the united states”…”and they understand that”…”When I’m telling them, they’re smiling at me. Ya know, It’s like, the gig is up. The gig is up! They can’t believe they got away with it.” Trump said. “You can tell that to your fake friends at CNN”  he continued.

          These other G7 leaders thought that they were going to lecture Trump on the glories of free trade, yet ended up with a rude awakening. President Trump essentially came to a gunfight armed with a tank. There is a now-viral image floating around the internet that shows Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, leaned over a table talking to Trump. The other leaders are also surrounding the table, where Trump is on the other side confidently sitting with a grin on his face. The picture is truly worth a thousand words.

Pic 1pic 2

          What was perhaps the funniest part about President Trump’s exchange with the reporter, is how Trump automatically knew to ask who the reporter working with, even in Canada. It’s like Trump can sniff out CNN. A ‘fake news-o-meter’ of sorts. Trump will continue to blow the minds of those to doubted him, and defend American interests the best way he can, as a strategic business genius.

Trump Calls For Free Trade at G7

By Nathan Walker

During the 44th G7 summit, President Donald Trump called for an elimination of tariffs between the member countries, a move that would promote true free trade between the US and its closest allies.

“Ultimately that’s what you want,” Trump said during a new conference. “You want a tariff free. You want no barriers. And you want no subsidies. Because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries and that’s not fair.”

It’s a big change from the tough talk that has come from the White House since Trump’s election.

The statements come amid tensions over the Trump administration’s move to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, designed to protect the US industries from foreign producers that undercut domestic prices. The Trump administration has maintained that protecting these industries is a matter of national security. The tariffs were met tit-for-tat by the EU, Canada, and Mexico on US goods, hitting farmers and manufacturing the hardest.

President Trump has repeatedly called for an end to trade deficits, pointing to situations like the trade imbalance with China, which Washington says stood at a record $375.2 billion last year. Trump’s stance is that these countries are taking unfair advantage of the US, a result of

“It’s going to change. Tariffs will come way down. We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing and that ends.”

The trade practices have led to an exodus of American companies and jobs to other countries. Car manufacturing, for example, has primarily moved to Mexico. According to Bloomberg, the average saving a US company could make by moving to Mexico is $20,000 per worker. It’s an extremely powerful economic incentive. This has led “at least 12 companies” to start the process of setting up in Reynosa, a city located further towards the eastern end of US-Mexico border.

Trump has also pointed to things like the Canadian tariff on US dairy goods, which was at 270% before Trump was even elected.

According to the World Trade Organization, America’s average tariff for imported goods is 2.4%. Canada’s average tariff for imported goods is 3.1%, and the EU’s average tariff for imported goods is 3%

Tariffs in general are a protectionist by nature, but ultimately do more harm than good. They are a means of benefiting the producer at the expense of the consumer. Those who favor them only think of the interest of the producers immediately benefited by the particular duties involved. They forget the interest of the consumers who are immediately injured by being forced to pay these duties. They also forget, or chose to ignore, the effects on other industries.

When Americans are forced to pay more for a certain product, they have that much less money to pay for other products, and may be forced to forgo their purchases entirely. It’s true, that a tariff does indeed benefit special interests in the short term, but only at the cost of everyone else involved.