The Daly Weekly (2/28)

Tariffs, Zelenskyy, Riviera of the Middle East, and more.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw at me.

Let’s get right to it…

---

Can you believe that Bill O'Reilly actually said that all this "hysteria" about tariffs causing inflation is nonsense, that tariffs might or might not raise prices? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I think O'Reilly is stooping so low that he'll have trouble straightening up. — Bob H.

I didn’t see what O’Reilly said, Bob, but Trump’s tariff plans can only raise prices on U.S. consumers (and already have). Here’s a good piece by economist Scott Lincicome that debunks the unicorn belief that tariffs don’t raise prices.

Please help us to understand why the mainstream media is unable to change their business models in the face of record monetary losses and customer abandonment. In the end aren't these businesses and corporations with shareholders who, I assume, are vaguely interested in making a profit? I can't imagine another business ignoring this overwhelming evidence of a failing operation. — Gregg G.

I think they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, Gregg. At this point in history, if they were to switch to a straight, credible, journalism model, they’d probably lose even more viewers, readers, and listeners. That’s because avid news consumers largely don’t want that (though they say they do). They want news-entertainment — the professional-wrestling-style stuff that Fox News and a number of podcasters have mastered. So, if profits are the ultimate goal, doubling down on rage and tribal red meat is, unfortunately, the safer play. It’s pretty depressing when you think about it.

I talked to The Dispatch’s Stephen Hayes about this topic (among others) last week.

How frustrating is it for you when you cite all kinds of economic studies and reports, and even interview renowned economists, all showing that tariffs raise consumer prices (a consensus among economists and world history), only to have people responding to your posts saying, “I don’t think Trump’s tariffs will raise prices.”? Lol. I’ve got to know. — Alex D.

It’s pretty frustrating, Alex. I addressed some of this in an earlier question, but… Trump’s tariffs raised prices in his first term. Biden continuing and expanding them raised prices. Trump’s new tariffs are already raising prices. When you decrease supply, and make the cost of goods and materials higher, consumers pay more. It’s basic economics. I didn’t come up with this stuff myself.

Like you said, I’ve shown my work and talked to experts, but if people refuse to believe that pouring gasoline on a fire makes that fire larger, even as they watch the flames rise themselves, there’s not much I can do to reason with them.

What do you think that after calling Zelenskyy a dictator, Trump gets a mineral rights deal from him? Wonder if he might get Zelenskyy to allow investigators in to do a full accounting of all the money sent to Ukraine by the previous administration. — Ray M.

I think Trump may have actually gotten played by Zelenskyy on this, Ray. More on that in a minute.

First: It is absolutely disgusting and un-American to call Zelensky a dictator, say that Ukraine started the war, vote “no” on a statement recognizing Russia as the aggressor in that war, parrot Russian propaganda against Ukraine, and make our support of an ally (who’s under attack by a genocidal tyrant and enemy of the United States) contingent on a mineral rights deal.

As it turns out on the latter, however, the “deal” is effectively nothing: a mere memo stating that the U.S. and Ukraine are intended to jointly invest in Ukraine’s mining industry and jointly receive profits at some point. It doesn’t appear to be binding, or even amount to an actual deal. This is a far cry from what the administration was initially proposing, but I suppose it will give Trump a signed piece of paper he can wave in front of the cameras while declaring himself a master negotiator. Zelenskyy understands that Trump cares far more about his own ego than Ukrainian lives and sovereignty, so he’ll likely give Trump this empty bragging point.

What I don’t know is if the stunt will make Trump any less likely to throw Ukraine to the Russian wolves, which still seems to be his intent.

Greetings Sir John! There appears to be some Gazans claiming that they want to be rid of HAMAS once and for all. If this is true, then these must be the Palestinians who actually do want Trump to make the Gaza Strip the Riviera of the Middle East. Do you realistically, in any possible way see Trump being successful in actually accomplishing this goal? Why or why not? Oh and what would you and Sir Bernie recommend as some good tourist spots in the Great State of Trump-A-Ho? — “Gaza Lago” regards from The Emperor

Do I think Trump can realistically turn the Gaza Strip into the Riviera of the Middle East? No, I don’t. I don’t think anyone who lives in the real world, and has even a basic understanding of the situation, believes that. In a way this reminds me of the border-wall fantasies from 2015/2016 — a big, beautiful, 2,000-mile wall across out southern border (with Mexico paying for it). That was a far more modest premise, on our own land, where no one lives, no utilities are required, and no rockets are flying. How did that work out?

Where were all the stories about JFK’s dalliances, FDR’s use of supportive devices, etc.? Today’s journalism would have addressed these topics to some degree, but earlier journalism did not.

Lest we think this is just a recent issue— So historically, Andrew Jackson couldn’t spell the word government (his best attempt was “goverment”). It may have been a good hit piece for the John Quincy Adams campaign. But journalists didn’t care much about the executive branch spelling acumen then (that didn’t matter until Dan Quayle). But the media did publish hit pieces against Jackson’s bigamy. Was that the most newsworthy thing about the man? Again, reporters should be more focused on the macro. Should DT have the unchallenged right to make unfounded claims? Of course not. But he does so primarily because he knows journalism will take the bait and keep him in the news cycle. — Samuel S.

I don’t consider myself a historian by any means, Samuel, but I do think the media, back in the old days, tended to cover for presidents’ personal deficiencies. I’d argue it still happens these days, but along partisan lines — with the “other side” reliably going into full attack mode over anything and everything. The latter is where the money is in a 24/7 news cycle (which, it self, lends to a more “micro” approach).

In regard to Trump, media organizations have plenty of objectively outrageous material to focus on without treating every indiscretion and careless word like a major news story.

After the Trump administration put a bunch of pressure on Romania to lift the travel ban of antisemitic influencer Andrew Tate, who admitted to and was charged with human trafficking, he and his brother returned to the United States to evade justice. Why do Trump and his crew keep going to bat for some of the worst people imaginable? — Ben G.

I assume the Tate brothers publicly said nice things about Trump, Ben. It doesn’t take much more than that.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.