Apropos the book that I just finished, I re-visited an interview from
September with Kyle Bass, where he examines many of the same themes about China. To that end, he offers a view on the trade
hostilities between the U.S. and China that I think helps to support President
Trump’s position and actions. Caveat
emptor (“KB” is Kyle Bass, “GW” is Grant Williams).
“KB: And whether you like
the current administration or not actually doesn't matter. You need to look at
what they're doing, right? Not what they're saying, what they're doing. Our
administration, whether you voted for President Trump or not-- I didn't vote
for him. I don't like the guy. I think he's got some real personal issues, just
like everyone does. But if you look at what he's done with NAFTA, with China,
with Canada and Mexico, he's done more than the last 15 presidents combined in
kind of trying to push back and level the playing field.
GW: But it's interesting
that that is couched as Trump getting tough on trade. Do you think-- I know you
speak to the higher ups in government. You have good lines of communication
open with those guys. Do they get this, or is this-- are they sleepwalked into
a really crucial area here?
KB: No, they get it. It's
the prior administration's, all the way back to Kissinger and Nixon. Kissinger
and Nixon pivoted to China to counterbalance Russia's influence around the
world. That was a strategic decision and we basically opened the kimono to
China and prostrated ourselves, and we've never looked back, and we've never
readjusted that relationship, and we allowed China to ascend in the WTO in
2001. We lost 4 million jobs in literally a nanosecond, as far as geopolitical
time is concerned. And interestingly enough, that's what gave rise to President
Trump. The Rust Belt flipped from blue to red, and that's why he got elected.
GW: Yeah.
KB: And it's interesting
but the inaction with China is actually what produced this kind of president
that I don't think many of us approve of. However, the people say Trump's
starting a trade war. It's laughable, because there's been a trade war since
2001, and we haven't been fighting.
GW: Yeah, right.
KB: We've just been
losing. And so the fact that he's leveling the playing field is the right thing
to do.”
Separately, I started another book that deals extensively in the use
and methods of persuasion, and how Trump is a master persuader in the author’s opinion. So, as a postscript to my other post
yesterday, where I made light of the President’s exaggerated trade deficit numbers
with China, the author suggests that such behavior is entirely consistent with
convincing people of your position. The
point is to be directionally accurate on the topic (i.e., “there is a major
trade deficit between the U.S. and China that needs attention and response”),
and even if your underlying details and facts are wrong, your opponents get
bogged down in refuting you, which allows the subject matter to take on even
more importance in everyone’s minds. You
have implicitly convinced people to make the topic a priority. And, by extension, you/Trump position
yourself as the strongest advocate for dealing with this now highly-important
issue.
