Photo, left: 
 
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
 
Co-hosts: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com & Daily Beast.
Hour One
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 1, Block A: Chris Harmer, senior military analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, in re: China – a rising power, a predatory state; aggressive against one of the US’s most consistent allies for decades: Japan. China has flown large numbers of bombers through the Miyako Strait , retaliating vs Japan for announcing it would continue to practice  freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
A calling card for Abe; “What you gonna do about this?” 
China thinks if it can move a lot of hardware through an area, everyone will cringe and back off.
However, the US is a naval power, and now is challenged because one of our allies is challenged.
If China expected Japan to fold, error. One of the problems with a centralize d structure, such as PRC, is ability to  make long-range plans without domestic interference; but cannot see the POV of others. 
China has established itself as a major military power; the only counter is the US being active there; it is not sufficiently.
Japan putting SAMs in Miyako chokepoint to militarize Miyako-jima.. Extremely costly for China to manoeuver there.
China can bld a lot of high-quality mil eqpt, but not close to the advanced caliber of US and Japanese.
Japan installing phased-array radars with active frequency-hopping, The US can defeat those; China apparently can’t.
US has 285 warships and a lot of responsibilities and claims on us in the Middle East, et al.; we’re definitely sort of vessels and need more ships.
Dr Waldron understands the history of Chinese military; but he’s rational and logical—but may not take into account the militarization of Chinese policy. Used soft power for years, now decided it’s time to militarize; they won’t shoot until they start shooting.
Live-fire exercises y Russia and and China is exercises: an escalation game? Yes – the era of undisputed American superiority in a blue-water navy is over.  US Navy isn't doing nearly enough to prevent Russia-China live-fire exercises. 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-defence-idUSKCN11V0ED
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/gordon-g-chang/chinas-warplanes-stalk-japan-unite-neighbors
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 1, Block B:  Charles Burton, professor of Brock University, in re:  Canadian PM Trudeau has an idea: although Canada and US have a historically amicable relations, Trudeau sees economic opportunities to bld Canadian prosperity, He ants to spend a lot on subsidies for persons and business; China offers to double trade with Canada. Trudeau’s father admired Mao Tse-tung;
Prof Burton wrote an important piece in the Toronto Sun : same promises China keeps making and not keeping; why can't Canadian leaders learn?   Canada joined the AAIB against Washington’s pleas; agreed to send oil from oil sands to China, absent the Keystone pipeline; and Ottawa will send Chines nationals back to China for “an uncertain” fate – yikes; real danger. However, Canadian judiciary probably will prevent this (coercion, torture, many miseries). 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/where-is-canada-going-with-china-now/article32045458/
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2023455/canadas-thorny-dilemma-over-extradition-treaty-china
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 1, Block C: David Feith (calling in)
Sino-Russian live-fire exercises, incl ASW and “island-seizing”;  grouped with other Chinese provocations —constructing hardened  military  shed on bogus islands – called “nontransparent moves by the Chinese military.”  However, the messaging was not opaque: no reason for the exercises except to intimidate the neighbors and assert power. Chinese statement said it was “not directed at third countries” – but of course it was, and part of a broader approach to signal neighbors that these two will throw heir weight around and others need to toe the line.
WH has recently directed the Pentagon to stop characterizing US-China relations as competitive or as a contest.  Reminds us of White House’s refusal to call jihadists Islamists.  Refuse to name things as they are.
Two dictatorships acting confidently with no fear; a new and growing boldness. The ambition of authoritarian powers is expanding, as they can cross red lines with impunity. Result f years of bad US policy has been [to awaken] India, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others, and spending more on self-defense and cooperating among themselves.  However, this is a risky business: increased military exercises can send a positive deterrent msg but also raise the likelihood of a miscue and accidental conflict.
Aung San Suu Kyi taking a big gamble: Burma story has recently been improbable in its rapid shift to semi-democracy; but old constitution was written by the old junta. All this could wind up impeding liberalization.
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 1, Block D: Josh Rogin, Washington Post Global Opinions columnist, in re: . . .  Mrs Clinton: one may disagree with her positions but no one can say she doesn't understand the issues; whereas one cannot say for sure that Mr Trump grasps al the facts and issues.  We have a moderator problem: first Matt Lauer, now Lester Holt.
 
Hour Two
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block A:  Peter Navarro, senior policy advisor to the Trump campaign; also filmmaker & UC Irvine; in re:  Trump trade policies. NATA:  in 1993, Pres Bill Clinton signs the treaty; US has studies saying we’ll create 200K jobs in 2 years; today, we've lost 850LK, and our trade deficit jumped to $850 mil with Mexico.  The WTO was created in 1995, so Mexico changes its VAT tax from 10% to 15% - one of many ways to disadvantage US corporations.
US company (or any company) can ship a car from Mexico to US with no VAT; if the same US co ships from US to Mexico, 15% VAT tax.
Debate was on 26 Sept; next Day, Congress had The Border _____ Act, directing the US Trade Rep to go to WTO to renegotiate a fair treatment; but we have an income tax, everyone else has a VAT tax.
TPP: In 2011 Mrs C praised after deriding a treaty w South Korea – a microcosm of the difference between DJT and HRJ. Promised to create 70,000 new jobs- but we've lost 95,000; and 75% of the damage has hit Michigan. What Trump advocates is negotiating deals in a smart way: had the promised gains not materialized, he’d renegotiate.  KORUS – South Korea free trade agreement; sovereignty: we have the largest economy in the world but these treaties decree one nation/one vote; we thereby have the same voting power as Albania or the Sultan of Brunei.  . . .  Germans have a mfrg base of 20% of its employment; US is at 8%.
Trump sees these trade deals as national security issues, a different way from how they’re cast. 
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block B:  Peter Navarro, senior policy advisor to the Trump campaign; also filmmaker & UC Irvine; in re:  Trump trade policies: 15% corp tax rate fits synergistically with the whole trade issue; our current 35% is highest in the world after Chad and UEA!  At 15%, will help keep our corporations here rather than travel away; and will repatriate maybe $5 trillion parked offshore. 
Trade & tax rates: when we move to 15%,  -- Mexico, VAT hurts us; China: cheating, intellectual property theft, substandard health and safety regs. Trump wd negotiate with Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, China, to reorganize.  But the corporate tax is “the biggie.”
Repeal the misnamed Clinton-favored “clean power act” and quite regulating energy to death. Trump understands the power of energy in this country.
Back to the TPP: envtl and labor standards that the US has and other nations don’t:  recall the 1995 WTO – no remedies on envtl health & safety, or currency manipulations, TPP offers only lip service; regulated by a committee that takes away US sovereignty.  Front doors and back doors into our mfrg base; Trump favors a bilateral approach with allies to have both countries grow.
NAFTA: if Mexico doesn't want to create a good deal for he US, it will be undone. Canada? We love Canada. 
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block C: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East bureau chief, in re:  Peres’s death; Aleppo. (1 of 2)
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 2, Block D: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East bureau chief, in re:  Peres’s death; Aleppo.  Northern Israel is now a sort of battle zone and people have to run to bomb shelters from Syrian fighting, even though Israel is not in that war. Will Syria fall? If so, who’ll take over? A witch’s brew f clans and jihadists?  Also, Erdogan’s mental stability is much in questions – paranoid and siding with Iran and the growth of Iran’s Shi’a umbrella; what will Turkey do? Focussed on Fethullah Gulen in the US.  Russia wants to end he Syrian a row so it can put Syria back together next spring; expect an enormous amount of fighting. Danger of Israel being dragged in. Where is Obama? What will he do? Will he let Russia and Turkey for m the architecture of the new Middle East?  Watch Aleppo. (2 of 2)
 
Hour Three
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block A:  Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re:  . . .  Trump is at his best when he’s talking about the American people, not being self-referential.  Find a way to bring it back to your four core themes.  Mrs Clinton needled him into growing annoyed and speaking inappropriately. She was overprepared; he was underprepared.  You  have to prepare something against a career politician. The fact that he survived on that huge stage means he won. 
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block B: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re: the presidential contest.
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block C:  Martin Fackler, NYT Tokyo, in re: nuclear weapons, Trump, Clinton. China
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 3, Block D:  Martin Fackler, NYT Tokyo, in re: nuclear weapons, Trump, Clinton. China
 
Hour Four
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 4, Block A: Richard A Epstein, Hoover Institution, Chicago Law, NYU Law, in re:  Taxes  (1 of 2)
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 4, Block B:  Richard A Epstein, Hoover Institution, Chicago Law, NYU Law, in re:  Taxes  (2 of 2)
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 4, Block C: John Tamny, Political Economy editor at Forbes, editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research & Trading, senior Fellow in economics at Reason Foundation; author of  Who Needs the Fed? and Popular Economics; in re:  If Trump isn't
Wednesday   13 January 2016 / Hour 4, Block D:   John Tamny (2 of 2)
..  ..  . .
If Trump Isn't Insulting Hillary Clinton, He's Losing;  by John Tamny
Describing presidential debates, the great George Will once observed that they're "about as satisfying as a completed sneeze." Tuesday night's faceoff between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was something quite a bit less. The only satisfaction any halfway sentient human could reasonably mine from their tangle is that neither Clinton nor Trump will have any kind of mandate come January 2017. Thank goodness.
Up front, Clinton won. No insight there. If Trump isn't constantly insulting his debate opponent(s) in grand style, he's losing. Worse, he's quite simply a bore when not being offensive. It's assumed by those who should know better that Trump's rise represents a change in the make-up of the GOP, and in the views of the electorate more broadly. Let's be serious. Trump copycats have lost everywhere this election season. Trump's appeal (at least in the Republican primaries) was always that he was somewhat interesting, that he represented great television drama, and that he could shrink his opponents with sometimes funny putdowns. In an effort to appear serious and perhaps more regal Trump revealed himself as painfully repetitive, insipid, and desert-level shallow when it came to policy knowledge.
The above helped Clinton because when it comes to her expressed economic views, she's hopeless too. With Clinton it's always the same. Platitudes about "good jobs" and "rising incomes," and "an economy that works for everyone, not just those on top." The problem is that good, well-paid jobs always and everywhere result from investment. No economic school of thought can get around the latter. In that case, the single best way to achieve good jobs that pay well is by - yes - making sure the economy works for the rich by reducing or removing the production barriers placed in front of them. By virtue of being "rich" they have disposable income that they can put to work. When they do, good jobs at good pay are the tautological outcome.
With the money of others ("money of others" and "Clinton" a redundancy) Clinton also promised a higher minimum wage, more paid leave, more family leave, etc. Missed by the Democratic nominee is that higher pay and workplace perks can't be decreed. At the same time, they're possible. But these things are generally only possible at corporations in which the CEOs and top executives are earning millions at the same time that their owners (rich investors) are earning billions. It's bad enough that Clinton is a redistributionist, and then it's sad she can't see that everything she wants economically is a function of an economy that works best for "those on top."
The shame was that the businessman in Trump didn't expose his opponent's confusion with an explanation of business basics. Instead, Trump proceeded to reveal himself as possibly even more economically misinformed than his opponent. There were the obvious falsehoods about how China's monetary authorities have been devaluing the currency when in fact it's risen quite a bit against the dollar since 2005. Trump's China fib revealed bigger misunderstandings within the New Yorker not just about the horrors of currency devaluations (he thinks they're a positive sign of a country gaining advantage), but also about the purpose of work in the first place. To put it simply, the sole reason we work is so that we can "import" from across the street and around the world all that we don't have. To import is the purpose of our work. The more we work productively, the more we can import. Abundant imports signal great wealth.
Yet none of the above has registered with Trump. Seemingly convinced we're still in the 1980s when Japan was allegedly "stealing" jobs from us, Trump is using China and Mexico as props to show us how little he knows about trade, and by extension, basic economics. Throughout the debate Trump kept repeating the childish falsehood that China and Mexico are "stealing our jobs" and that they're building their economies by - gasp - exporting to us. Trump was at least right about the latter, only for him to draw the exactly wrong conclusion. Trump decries imports as a signal of our economic decline, yet that simply tells us he hasn't spent much time in poor countries. Imports are scarce in countries that are being "crushed" economically.
But this being Trump, he repeated over and over again what a disaster NAFTA was, how poorly negotiated trade deals have given us record "trade deficits," along with the constant assertion that the U.S. is in "serious trouble." Can we at least try to be serious? For one, countries don't trade. Consenting individuals trade. We have "trade deficits" that allow us to import more product than we export only because global demand for the shares of U.S. companies (and our export of same) don't count in these worthless trade calculations. Only to Trump could abundant foreign investment be a sign of economic weakness. Lastly, never in the history of mankind has a country been in "serious trouble" at the same time that the world's most productive were fighting desperately for market share in that country.
Sorry, but Trump can't have it both ways. If trade is in fact war as he presumes, and if our alleged enemies in China and Mexico are truly stealing our jobs, then it would certainly be the case that they would not be exporting to us. Indeed, what producer would export to a country in which people weren't working? Sadly, neither Clinton nor debate host Lester Holt challenged Trump on his many foolish economic assertions. Holt didn't challenge Clinton either.
Trump apologists who should know better talk up his huge tax-cut proposals, and while laudable, they ignore that Trump wants to seriously raise taxes on the American people through massive spending increases on infrastructure, tariffs on foreign goods, and a devaluation of the very currency (the dollar) that Americans exchange for all that they don't have. Missed by Trump partisans is that corporate, capital gains and individual rates of taxation are but a few of the many ways in which government can overtax us. What Trump proposes to give in tax cuts he also proposes to take back in economy-sapping fashion. Economic policy is not his strong suit. Neither is it Clinton's. Again, thank goodness for the separation of powers that is codified in our Constitution.
Trump had another chance to embarrass Clinton when she critiqued his business acumen with comments about bankruptcies and his stiffing of former contractors. Trump's weak responses raised a question about the people advising him. Were they more economically attuned themselves they would have programmed Trump to reply with something along the lines of "I'm an entrepreneur. I'm often doing what no one has done before when I develop real estate and start businesses. I've taken many risks over the years, and some of them didn't work. This is what we businessmen and women do. My opponent knows nothing about this. Her immense wealth has never involved risk-taking or profits and losses, but instead has had everything to do with her and her husband's ability to influence how a $4 trillion dollar government spends the money of the American taxpayer. Naturally my opponent has never had a business failure, and naturally she can't understand what I do. She can't because her wealth is solely a function of fleecing all of you."
Rather than wipe the floor with Clinton, Trump meekly dissembled about how his employees love him, and that his bankruptcies were just him taking advantage of esoteric tax law. Can anyone play this game? Trump at least used to be able to. The man who perfected the put down on the way to shrinking his opponents was himself shrunk in the debate. By Hillary Clinton.
Clinton won given the simple truth that Trump is not winning unless he's insulting his opponent. As for the failed attempts last night to make Trump appear presidential, it's not happening. Not even close. Trump is not just a bore when he tries to appear serious, he also comes off as clueless. Indeed, the worst thing about the debate for Trump was the two minutes allotted to each for every question posed by Holt. Trump's knowledge of any policy subject couldn't fill up ten seconds. Trying to go against type by not insulting Clinton with great constancy, Trump talked policy. And talked. And repeated himself over and over again without making any coherent points. Many have pointed this out, but Trump is the know-nothing friend or relative who, having recently discovered an interest in policy, has decided that interest and knowledge are one and the same. The result was that Trump talked and talked in the debate; every word revealing for all to see just how little he knows. The Trump partisans who claimed similarities between him and Ronald Reagan should hang their heads in shame. Reagan's favorite thinker was Fredric Bastiat. Does anyone think Trump's ever heard of the 19th century French political economist?
So yes, Trump lost last night and he lost big. Try as they might, Trump's handlers can't make him look or act presidential. What they miss is that they shouldn't try. When Trump tries to appear presidential it means he's talking policy; meaning he looks foolish.  That's like Hillary Clinton talking about real estate development. As little as she knows about economic policy, Clinton knows even less about real estate. With Trump, his knowledge of public policy is on par with Clinton's on real estate. He knows not of what he speaks as the debate revealed in living color. Unless Trump is willing to insult Clinton, and keep the campaign light and fun, he'll lose.
Much like the football coach who thinks only bad outcomes can result from passing the ball, in Trump's case he's always losing when he's talking policy. This is true even when his proposals (tax cuts) are good. Donald Trump needs to fire up the insults, and quickly. Absent that, Hillary Clinton has this game won. "To thine own self be true" should be plastered on the wall of the walls of Trump headquarters in the way that "It's the economy, stupid," informed the victorious presidential campaign of the husband of Trump's opponent.
John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, Political Economy editor at Forbes, a Senior Fellow in Economics at Reason Foundation, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading (www.trtadvisors.com). He's the author of Who Needs the Fed?: What Taylor Swift, Uber and Robots Tell Us About Money, Credit, and Why We Should Abolish America's Central Bank (Encounter Books, 2016), along with Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics (Regnery, 2015).
 
++++++++++++