Canada Trump tariff exemption ‘like dodging a bullet into the path of a tank’, says business leader

Canada’s exemption from Donald Trump’s global tariffs was “like dodging a bullet into the path of a tank”, say business leaders as other levies are poised to hit key industries that drive the country’s economy.In a theatrical unveiling of tariffs on countries with “unfair” practices on Wednesday afternoon, Canada was noticeably absent, alongside trade ally Mexico.But speaking speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill, prime minister Mark Carney said 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, as well as on automobiles, will come into effect within hours.Canada would “fight these measures with countermeasures” he said, ahead of a meeting with cabinet ministers. “In a crisis, it’s important to come together. It’s essential to act with purpose and with force and that’s what we’ll do.”Already, Canada had put a 25% tax on C$30bn ($21bn) worth of US goods in response to Trump’s tariffs. Among the products targeted are spirits, wine and orange juice – items meant to inflict targeted economic pain. The federal government has repeatedly pledged to keep its retaliatory measures until the US lifts all levies on Canadian products.Carney warned that while Trump had preserved key elements of the bilateral relationship, the global tariffs announced earlier in the day “fundamentally change the international trading system”.The prime minister is expected to outline the next stages of Canada’s response on Thursday. According to the prime minister’s office, a meeting of Carney’s cabinet will follow. The Liberal leader is also expected to meet virtually with Canada’s premiers.Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association posted on social media the result was “like dodging a bullet into the path of a tank”.“The. Auto. Tariff. Package. Will. Shut. Down. The. Auto. Sector. In. The. USA. And. In. Canada,” he wrote. “Don’t be distracted. 25% tariffs are 4 times the 6/7% profit margins of all the companies. Math, not art.”Candace Laing, head of Canada’s Chamber of Commerce said in a statement the world was “waking up today to a reality that Canada has been living with for months” and that the tariffs mean businesses around the world “have had their uncertainty expanded … chain reaction of tariffs and counter-tariffs will have a real and distressing economic impact on Americans, Canadians and the global economy.”It is unclear the extent to which an “extremely productive” telephone call between Trump and Carney last week influenced the decision to grant a reprieve to Canada. The call, requested by the White House, was the first time the two leaders have spoken since Carney became prime minister on 14 March.Carney had previously said he would not speak to the president until Trump showed respect for Canada’s independence. “I’m available for a call, but we’re going to talk on our terms. As a sovereign country – not as what he pretends we are – and on a comprehensive deal.”The sprawling tariffs, some of which apply to remote and uninhabited islands, have rattled markets and Canadian officials were planning for levies that could devastate manufacturing hubs and resource-based economies.“The positive thing that I saw was we weren’t on that list,” Ontario premier Doug Ford told reporters at Queen’s Park. “Let’s hope that there’s some positive news coming.”The much-hyped announcement from the White House has already thrown a wrench in the federal election campaign. Carney flew from Winnipeg back to Ottawa on Tuesday night in order to convene a virtual meeting of business and union leaders who are part of the Canada-US Relations Council.In a handout, the White House said the president’s use of the international emergency economic powers act remained in effect – a declaration made in reference to the alleged movement of both migrants and fentanyl over the border.None of the items that comply with the continental free trade agreement will be taxed, the White House said, but “non-compliant goods” will have a 25% levy and energy and potash products will have a 10% tariff imposed. If the emergency order was rescinded, all “non-compliant” goods would face a 12% tax.The news pushed Canada’s dollar up, a currency that has over the last few months been depressed by the ongoing trade war.Canada has repeatedly argued a minuscule amount of the fentanyl in the US from the north. In new figures published by the Globe and Mail, the US border agency attributed less than one pound of seized fentanyl to Canada, or 0.13% of all seizures.Canada’s efforts to reach key voices in the US has met some success. On Wednesday evening, a bipartisan group of senators passed a resolution to end the national fentanyl emergency the president invoked earlier this year in order to justify the 25% tax on Canadian imports.The move, which attracted Republican senators Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul to across the political aisle, is seen as a strong rebuke to Trump. But the vote is likely to be largely symbolic. House speaker Mike Johnson is unlikely to bring the measure to a vote.

DNR announces 2025 rare species community-based science projects

MADISON — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently announced volunteer opportunities to help monitor rare and endangered species and manage their habitats in 2025.While many Wisconsinites appreciate the beauty of our plants, animals and natural landscapes, a special few volunteer their time to survey for rare and endangered species. These volunteers, known as community scientists, do things including learning to distinguish the calls of the 12 different frog and toad species found in Wisconsin or finding and identifying rare plants.The DNR seeks volunteers for the following projects:
Plants and Habitats:●  State Natural Areas Volunteers●  Wisconsin Rare Plant Monitoring ProgramInvertebrates:●  Karner Blue Butterfly Volunteer Monitoring Program●  Wisconsin Bumble Bee Brigade●  Wisconsin Mussel Monitoring ProgramOther Animals:●  Wisconsin Bat Program: Acoustic and Summer Roost Monitoring●  Wisconsin Frog and Toad Survey●  Wisconsin Turtle Conservation Program“Volunteers support critical research and monitoring for many of Wisconsin’s rarest plant and animal species and provide an effective approach to managing invasive species,” said Owen Boyle, DNR species management section manager. “We’re immensely grateful for the hours they’ve dedicated to this often complex and detailed work. When we better understand how species populations are being impacted by threats like degraded habitat, disease and climate change, we can take action before they disappear from Wisconsin.”In 2024, volunteers completed surveys and collected data in nearly every county in the state. Volunteer opportunities are available for everyone, regardless of initial skill level, science or nature experience or time availability. No matter who you are or where you are in Wisconsin, you can contribute to the management of our precious natural resources.Learn more about these opportunities.Other Ways To HelpTraining, coordination and data analysis for these projects, along with many other activities to conserve rare species by department staff, are supported in part by the Endangered Resources Fund. Contributions to the Endangered Resources Fund come from income tax form donations, Endangered Resources license plates and individual gifts.Learn more about the Endangered Resources Fund or donate.

Crypto Has Become the Trump Family Business

I know it’s almost overwhelming — the continuous cacophony of catastrophes brought on by the crackpot in chief. But I suspect what will bring him down sooner than anything is his boundless greed and that of his family. Monday, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. announced they were joining forces with a bitcoin mining company to create…

Who’s Mad Scientist Monster on The Masked Singer? Fans Think It’s This Country Singer Underdog

This is Mad Scientist Monster’s big moment. The Masked Singer contestant said it was a chance for him to reintroduce himself to the world, and he’s making his mark!

During Group C’s debut, Mad Scientist Monster sang the hit classic “Unwell” by Matchbox Twenty. The Masked Singer judges panel led to believe that it’s a country legend. Jenny McCarthy thought it was Luke Bryan while Ken Jeong and Robin Thicke guessed Luke Combs and Blake Shelton.

Related: Here’s How Much The Masked Singer Judges Make Per Season

Related Stories

We’ve all heard that familiar country voice, but some netizens are convinced that it’s this lone crooner.

Who’s Mad Scientist Monster on The Masked Singer?

The internet’s best guess for Mad Scientist Monster is country singer Joe Nichols. Don’t believe us, take a look at the clues below.

Episode 7

“Becoming the Mad Scientist Monster fits perfectly for me, because you have to be a little bit crazy, keep experimenting, and reinventing yourself, which is why I’m here — I’m gonna win this thing. My skills made the scouts go wild, it seemed like everyone wanted to recruit me to their team” but when it was time for his chance he says “everything combusted”

Joe Nichols battled addiction since 2002 after the death of his father. In 2007, he checked into rehab.

“They sidelined me, I about lost my mind, but in the chaos, a new experiment bubbled to the surface — you see, for every action there is a reaction, and my reaction changed the world”

He made a comeback after parting ways with his longtime label when he signed to Red Bow in October 2012.

A radar gun that says “fast” on it

He just released his single “Home Run.”

A red liquid in a martini glass

Joe’s single “Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off” rose in the charts.

A fish tank with a big trout in it all appear in the package as well

The country singer is a big fisher.

Here are the winners of The National Book Foundation’s “5 Under 35.”

April 2, 2025, 12:05pm

The National Book Foundation announced the five writers under 35 whose debut novels or short story collections promise “to leave a lasting impression on the literary landscape.” This year’s 5 Under 35 honorees are short story writers, prose-poets, and novelists who have won numerous honors and positions in their still-budding careers.
Every year, the honorees are picked by a group of fellow writers, previously honored by the National Book Foundation who each select one book to champion. The honorees, their books, and their selectors, are:
Stacie Shannon Denetsosie, The Missing Morningstar and Other Stories
Selected by Mona Susan Power for its “intense, brilliant energy — the well-crafted prose alternately poetic and stark, painting unforgettable scenes in striking detail”
Megan Howell, Softie
Selected by Deesha Philyaw for how “Megan so beautifully captures the heart going through the ringer while trying to survive.”
Maggie Millner, Couplets: A Love Story
Selected by C Pam Zhang, who found the stories “tender, prickly, funny, self-effacing, cerebral, erotic, and luminous.”
Alexander Sammartino, Last Acts
Selected by George Saunders for its “a sense of wry wonder that manifested as a pretty rare thing in fiction these days: genuine humor.”
Jemimah Wei, The Original Daughter
Selected by Morgan Talty for how it “transgress against the western arc of narrative,” and wrote that “there’s an element of transcendence to this book that’s hard to come by.”
You can read more from the winners and about why each selection was made over at Vulture.
This is the 20th anniversary of this program, which is sponsored by the Amazon Literary Partnership, and which awards each honoree a $1,250 prize—though surely Bezos can afford to pay them a bit more?

Dailysun | KwaZulu-Natal pupils win International Science Awards in Tunisia for Eco-Bricks and AI Road Maintenance Projects

Hamzah Ismail and Vibhav Ramdas flew Mzansi’s flag high in Mahdia, Tunisia.

KZN pupils win awards at international science festival.Two grade 12 pupils from St Dominic’s Newcastle School in KZN have earned international recognition at the prestigious International Festival of Engineering, Science and Technology (I-FEST²) held in Tunisia.Hamzah Ismail and Vibhav Ramdas showcased Mzansi’s emerging scientific talent during the event, which took place from 21 to 27 March 2025 in Mahdia, Tunisia.Bronze medal for sustainable construction solutionIsmail was awarded a bronze medal in the Environmental Science category for his research on Developing Eco-friendly, Fire-retardant Plastic Bricks as an Alternative in Modern Construction. His sustainable solution impressed judges amid tough competition.”The competition was tough, with talented scientists from around the world, so receiving this recognition is an incredible honour. “It reminds me that hard work and perseverance truly pay off. This experience motivates me to continue my scientific journey,” said Ismail.Computer science project earns honourbale awardRamdas received an Honorable Award in the Computer Science category for his project “Using Object Detection to Improve Road Maintenance,” showcasing artificial intelligence’s practical applications in infrastructure.”When I heard my name called at the awards ceremony, I felt a rush of excitement,” said Ramdas.”It felt amazing to represent my family and country. Hard work really does lead to success, and I’m inspired to keep pushing forward.”Eskom expo supports young scientists Together, young innovators from around the world were offered opportunities to showcase their work, exchange ideas, and engage in cultural experiences.Mologadi Motshele, Acting CEO of the Eskom Development Foundation, praised the students’ achievements.”Their innovation and dedication are inspiring. Eskom is committed to empowering South Africa’s youth through initiatives like the Eskom Expo for Young Scientists, which fosters skills in science and technology, ensuring the next generation can drive technological advancements and contribute to a sustainable future.”Eskom Expo Executive Director Parthy Chetty said: “Your success shows that with passion and perseverance, anything is possible. To all Eskom Expo learners, let this inspire you to dream big, work hard, and push boundaries.”Registration for Eskom Expo 2025 remains open for aspiring young scientists.For more news and entertainment in the palm of your hand, follow our WhatsApp Channel via this link 

They’ve Got Him Now! Almost 2,000 Scientists Sign Petition to Stop Trump’s ‘Assault’ on Their Grant Money

They’ve got him now, ladies and gentlemen!Some 2,000 scientists, engineers, and researchers have signed a petition, asking President Trump to stop his ‘assault’ on science.

Advertisement

This writer is going to hazard a guess they do not mean the ‘assault’ of saying gender is fluid, or that climate change is settled, or anything having to do with COVID.But she digresses.Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and researchers penned an open letter this week to President Trump’s administration, calling for a stop to its “assault” on science. https://t.co/0afnqM484x— ABC News (@ABC) April 2, 2025Here’s more from ABC News:Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and researchers penned an open letter this week to President Donald Trump’s administration, calling for a stop to its ‘assault’ on science.The letter was signed by elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a congressional chartered organization that provides independent analysis and helps inform public policy decisions.The group made clear the signatories are expressing their own views and not those of the National Academies or their home institutions.’We are speaking out as individuals. We see real danger in this moment,’ the letter said, in part. ‘We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.’

Recommended

Advertisement

There is no danger.There is no assault on science.Are these guys friends with the 50 Intelligence Community guys who told us the Hunter Laptop story was Russian disinformation?— The **shi**t** Post-See Pinned Post (@dying_democracy) April 2, 2025Probably.Do these scientists believe that humans can magically morph into the opposite sex?— XX=Female 🩷 (@xxwoman471377) April 2, 2025Would any of us be surprised if they did?Nope.*their funding— Richard DeCamp (@richdecamp) April 2, 2025Nailed it.That’s exactly what this is about.Not science.Money.Woke “Science” isn’t science.It’s pandering for grant dollars.— Populo Iratus (@astronomy89) April 2, 2025Exactly.The science that dictated grocery store aisles be one way, and a fresh air hike without a mask would kill you? Or the science that says there are 76 genders and that men can get pregnant?— Lili von Shtupp (@LvS_Redux) April 2, 2025Yeah. We’re gonna need a clearer definition of science before we get worked up about this.It’s fun to go through the signatures on this letter.Dr. Salim Abdool Karim signed it. He and his wifeQuarraisha have received over $60 million from US taxpayers for just one project, all sent to South Africa.Omg stop this assault on SCIENCE!!! https://t.co/U3R11wPFr2 pic.twitter.com/LCEFxj6hUc— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) April 2, 2025

Advertisement

Just incredible.They have no shame.They’re not mad because it’s an “assault on science.” They’re made because it’s an assault of grift. Some people are allergic to common sense, but their egos insist on wrapping it around “you wouldn’t understand” arrogance. Book smart, street stupid. https://t.co/Ls3ZBAKxut— BostonWriter (@bostonwriter) April 2, 2025They think they are our moral and intellectual superiors.Maybe stop wasting millions in tax dollars on transing mice https://t.co/dRgyJp9njf— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) April 2, 2025That’s a good suggestion.How do you know Trump is on the right path?When Covid quacks oppose it. https://t.co/56sunMWyLj— john jackson (@pvtjokerus) April 2, 2025He’s right over the target.The basics of science is that it constantly must be assaulted. There’s no such thing as “settled science.” https://t.co/jFu2IgeB1l— JoeVento🇺🇸 (@Vento_Const) April 2, 2025Nope, and anyone who says the science is ‘settled’ is lying.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie. Help us continue exposing their grift by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

The Washington Consensus Could Not Hold

Gabrielle SIERRA: So Shannon, friend of the pod, welcome back to Why It Matters. Before you came on, we were talking about how Washington Consensus sounds like a cocktail. So if it was a cocktail, what would it be for you?

Shannon K. O’NEIL: Ooh, if the Washington Consensus was a cocktail, it would be like a negroni.

SIERRA: Ooh. Okay. Because you love negronis or because you feel like it’s a perfect analogy?

O’NEIL: Because I don’t mind negronis, but it’s a little bit bitter, but it gives you a little bit of a kick too.

SIERRA: Love it, great.

The Washington Consensus is actually a list of ten commandments – ten widely agreed-upon U.S. policy standards crafted in 1989 to guide the improvement of economic performance. That really does feel like another era, in which the prosperous United States was at the helm of global economic and political affairs and one of the lead champions of trade. But at the start of 2025, trade is sizing up to be an arena of confrontation and anything but consensus, and is even raising concerns that a new protectionist era could spur a recession.

I’m Gabrielle Sierra and this is Why It Matters. Today, how can we agree on the rules of trade when the rules no longer apply?

SIERRA: So last episode, we talked to your colleague and mine, Ted Alden, about the history of our trade policy, the 101 for this season about trade, but now we need your help to bridge us to today. How much of our trade history or former trade policy is still relevant today? 

O’NEIL: Both much of it and none of it. 

This is Shannon O’Neil. She is the director of studies for CFR and a leading authority on global trade and supply chains.

O’NEIL: We have seen a huge shift in just a couple of months in the way the U.S. government thinks about trade. That said, lots of the tools that are being used today have been around for decades, if not centuries. Things like tariffs, things like what wonky trade people call non-tariff barriers, so subsidies or other kinds of rules and regulations that make it harder to trade between countries, those things have been around forever. But how they’re being used is really different than it was over the last several decades, probably since World War II.

SIERRA: When you Google Washington Consensus, if you ever have, but if you do, countless economic institutions and think tanks have articles analyzing it, and it actually has its own Wikipedia page. So clearly it seems more complicated than I thought. So let’s start with the basics then. What the heck is it?

O’NEIL: Well, you found so many articles about the Washington Consensus because people don’t actually agree. There’s really no consensus about the Washington Consensus. The story is that it came out of this article that a guy named John Williamson wrote.

John Williamson was an economist and he served in many high-level positions including as chief economist for South Asia at the World Bank from 1996 to 1999 and he was project director for the UN panel on Financing for Development in 2001. 

In 1989, he coined the term “Washington Consensus” to refer to the policy reforms promoted by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury for emerging-market economies.

O’NEIL: And it was this idea that to have a functioning economy in the world and be part of the global economy, you needed to do certain things. You needed to open up your economy to trading goods and services. You needed to potentially open up your economy to the movement, the flow of capital, so allowing money to come back and forth, making your exchange rate easier to exchange and the like. And you needed to reform your government so it wasn’t so big, it wasn’t such a big part of the economy. So that might’ve been privatizing all kinds of companies, like privatizing the airline or privatizing your energy…

https://youtu.be/CeeYhhMXHJE?feature=shared&t=1335 

One of the first was Omig, a maker of electronic components… As a private company Omig could operate more efficiently.

https://youtu.be/CeeYhhMXHJE?feature=shared&t=535 

The government also privatized hundreds of other companies from sugar mills to steel mills to the telephone company.

O’NEIL: It then got taken and it became sort of a mantra for lots of policies that were beginning to be pushed by places like the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, when they would give loans, particularly to emerging economies. And it was a lot of the changes that they wanted in economies in order to give money to those various places. So starting in the 1990s, the 2000s and on. The Washington Consensus was sort of a shorthand for lots of the opening up and reform that was being asked of countries around the world from international financial institutions.

This new approach flipped the old one on its head, saying economic growth was too important to leave in the hands of bureaucrats—and that the only way to thrive was by letting the free markets do their thing.

But even from the jump these ten points were reinterpreted and perhaps misinterpreted. What went on to be known as the Washington Consensus was not Williamson’s idea. He may have coined the term, yes, but the Washington Consensus he wrote was actually a baseline for Latin American reform – a set of ten economic policies that he felt most officials in Washington already agreed upon.

Unfortunately for Williamson, once the term made the rounds it was too late and the Washington Consensus stuck in its reinterpreted form—a rigid set of policy prescriptions seized on by everyone from free-market advocates to anti-globalists.

SIERRA: Why was it so important for us to sort of be at the helm, the top dog economy in the world? Why did these economic ideas come in large part from Washington?

O’NEIL: So it got associated with the United States because in the 1990s, when these ideas came out and were being put in place around the world, the United States was really the sole superpower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDuMUgt-og 

Bill CLINTON: We gathered to celebrate a great victory, a moment when our country has chosen to take the lead in shaping a new world of expanded trade and expanded opportunity…

The 90’s – the era of President Bill Clinton, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the personal computer. During this time the U.S. was a global powerhouse, heading up the World Bank and holding a very influential position at the IMF. And what began as Washington’s advice for Latin America’s development, had become a worldwide consensus by the mid-1990s. 

O’NEIL: And the United States was, at the time, asking countries to open up their economies, to trade more, to lower those trade barriers and tariffs. So we saw that with what had been, it was called the GATT, which was a bunch of countries together that had trade arrangements. That became the WTO, the World Trade Organization during the 1990s, led by the United States and many other nations. And it had more powers, it could punish people who didn’t behave in terms of tariffs as well, which was something that the previous organization had not been able to do. There was no other major power, other country out there that could rival the United States, whether militarily or economically or diplomatically, the changes of the 1990s were really associated with the United States, even if it wasn’t just the United States pushing for these sorts of things.

SIERRA: All right, so then the question, does the Washington Consensus from the turn of the century, as you describe it, still stand today at all?

O’NEIL: It no longer has the aura of success that it had.

Takeaway 1: The Washington consensus of the past no longer exists. 

Many of the policies supported by international development organizations, like open trade and free markets, have lost their credibility. And today, there is no baseline consensus among our elected officials on what economic reforms are needed to protect American workers and maintain U.S. leadership in the global economy.

O’NEIL: For advanced manufacturing economies like the United States or like Europe the ideas of the Washington Consensus, the privatization, the opening of the economy, it didn’t deal with some of the problems that public and politics cares about today. It didn’t deal with inequalities within countries. It didn’t deal with jobs lost when trade or technology came to various communities. It didn’t deal with the kinds of stuff that people care about and that people vote on, sort of pocketbook issues in lots and lots of communities. So for the United States, for Europe, the Washington Consensus didn’t answer the questions that politicians really need to answer today if they want to get reelected. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSUO0vkrzg&t=63s 

It’s bad out here, dude. Rent is really bad.

$300 electric bill? This is what has been going on in America.

O’NEIL: For emerging economies, for countries that are beginning to develop or sort of ascending that scale and trying to become high income countries, the Washington Consensus didn’t always help them. So countries that went by the Washington Consensus, countries that really did open up their economies, they did become free trading nations, some of them benefited, but they didn’t grow as quickly or become as wealthy as countries that protected their economies, countries like China or countries even like Korea and places like that, that put in what people call industrial policy. They spent lots of government money to make sure they could build ships or they could have other big industries and increasingly things like semiconductors and the like. Some of the most successful stories of economic growth and success, Taiwan or South Korea or China, they didn’t follow the Washington Consensus. So that’s another reason why it hasn’t been as popular, is countries that have grown more didn’t follow the mandates of it.

China, now a manufacturing powerhouse and the world’s second-largest economy, thrived by ignoring many Washington Consensus principles in the 90s and early 2000s. It was absent from international institutions supporting those ideas, rejected market reforms, and increased state control over its economy. China focused on domestic development, infrastructure, and poverty reduction. And guess what? Its economy continues to grow rapidly today.

China’s success story challenges longstanding assumptions about free-market economies and proved that developing countries could get ahead without following the advice of the Washington Consensus.

O’NEIL: So I think where we went wrong a bit was the other countries that don’t play by the rules, they can get advantage, and that’s what happened to some of those places.

SIERRA: So the promises of growth and wealth didn’t really pan out for everyone. And others who might’ve seen growth and wealth didn’t necessarily follow this model. 

O’NEIL: Exactly. Sort of those who thought about the Washington Consensus or those who believed and followed the words of the Washington Consensus weren’t the biggest performers in terms of economics over the recent years, and so there’s real questions about it.

In countries that hopped on the Washington Consensus bandwagon, economic growth was a bit of a rollercoaster.

Take Latin America. After seven years of solid growth in the early ’90s, things came to a screeching halt with seven years of stagnation and recession. In the end, growth under the Washington Consensus was half of what it had been in the 1950s to 1970s, and even in places where it looked like the Washington Consensus was sparking growth, poverty didn’t really diminish.

SIERRA: Is this a hot take? Is this sort of like a really edgy thing to acknowledge that it’s not working and we need something brand new? 

O’NEIL: I think the challenge here is that many of the ideas in the Washington Consensus are actually very sound ideas. The idea that countries can trade with each other, they can get cheaper consumer goods on one side, that they can join the global economy and make things for places beyond just their local village, brings incredible productivity, brings knowledge transfers, brings their ability to climb technological skills. This has changed the world fundamentally for the better.

SIERRA: So I’m a lawmaker in the U.S., you caught me in an elevator. Tell me what are the key takeaways when it comes to what Washington should change and what you think the new consensus should be? What are your recommendations for me?

O’NEIL: So a new Washington Consensus should start at home and it should provide supports for people who have to make job transitions. So that means healthcare, that means education, that means unemployment insurance and other things to make it easier for people to find new jobs and move to where those new jobs are. That’s one side. The other side, since I have you in this elevator, the other side is that you should help Americans and American-based businesses sell to the rest of the world. So that means helping support exporters. It also means tying U.S. production to production in other countries so that the United States can benefit from and prosper from being part of global supply chains, which is really where the global action is today. The way we make things today, the way trade really occurs today is in what economists call intermediate goods. So the pieces and parts that come together to make your iPhone, to make your car, to make your blender, to make your, since we’re doing a podcast, your microphone, those come from lots of different countries. And for the United States, it would be great to have our factories, our workers making some of those pieces and parts, not just buying that final product.

Takeaway 2: Creating a safety net at home to deal with changes in the global economy doesn’t mean that we have to pull out of our trade partnerships. Both can exist simultaneously and both should be invested in. 

SIERRA: So it doesn’t necessarily mean moving away from globalization, it’s just adjustments maybe to be made at home.

O’NEIL: That is a big part of it. The other part, I would say for the United States in particular, if we’re searching for solutions, is that the United States is the largest consumer economy in the world, it’s a huge percentage of global GDP, but we’re only 4 percent of the globe’s population. So if we want to grow our economy, we should try to target those other 96 percent of the global population that’s out there, the billions and billions of people that aren’t within our shores. The next billion middle-class people, coming to the middle-class, are going to be in Asia, they’re not going to be in the United States.

In the 2010s, East Asia, particularly China, helped grow the number of people in the middle class around the world to almost 4 billion. This meant more people were able to spend money buying things, which boosted international markets. Now, it’s South Asia’s turn. 

Over the next decade, countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh will see a major middle-class boom, contributing 40 percent of the new global consumer class by 2030. With 1 billion new consumers entering the market, the U.S. needs to tap into this rapidly growing base to stay competitive—especially as these regions are projected to drive a huge chunk of global demand in the coming years.

O’NEIL: So as we think about it, yes, we need to provide greater protections here at home for people, give them healthcare, give them childcare, give them a social safety net, unemployment insurance and education, and ways to make a transition. But two, we should also set up policies and economies that allow us to sell products globally into lots of other places because that too is a way of creating prosperity and wealth.

SIERRA: You’ve convinced me. That’s it, that’s all I took. Let’s get up and we’re going to do it. We’re going to change everything done.

O’NEIL: We’re done here.

SIERRA: Together!

O’NEIL: Okay, you go to Congress and you figure it out.

SIERRA: So who are the big players involved in forming a new Washington Consensus that we should be following? Who are the decision makers here?

O’NEIL: So in the United States, the president is a really big decision maker, and we’ve seen that over just the last number of weeks, because the president has a lot of powers to set the rules of global trade, or at least trade with the United States. We have seen in the last several weeks lots of tariffs. That has been the biggest tool that the Trump administration has been using.

https://youtu.be/N7eEVC_wY5o?feature=shared&t=78 

Donald TRUMP: I say the most beautiful word in the entire dictionary of words is the word tariff, I love tariff.

O’NEIL: And that is resetting relationships with other countries. It’s making it harder for other countries to import things to the United States, making it more expensive for them to bring products here. It is also, especially when there’s retaliatory tariffs, so other countries put tariffs on us because we put tariffs on them. It’s U.S. products that we want to sell to their consumers in other countries, it’s making those products more expensive. There are other decision makers, and I would say there Congress is a big part of this and there where Congress really has influence. Congress too can set tariffs if they want to, or sanctions or other kinds of punitive measures, sticks to hit others who are trading with us. Congress also has the carrot of creating free trade agreements. The president negotiates them, but Congress has to approve them. The question here is really who’s guiding the trade policy? And here, so far it has been President Trump. He’s really setting the tone and he’s asking the trade representative and others within his administration to implement that. 

https://youtu.be/wh8Jry3hUAA?si=wPjmY0SZMdXnUiZy&t=51 

Donald TRUMP: This is the beginning of liberation day in America. We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth…

ONEIL: So, so far, that has been putting tariffs on or getting ready to put tariffs on lots of countries and lots of different sectors. It may also be putting other kinds of sanctions or limits or quotas or negotiating agreements around currencies and their levels, vis-a-vis the dollar. All of those things are really in the purview of those working around Trump, and so the trade representative is a big part of that whole process.

Trump isn’t the first president to enact trade policy without consulting Congress. Jimmy Carter imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 during the hostage crisis. George W. Bush and later Barack Obama imposed unilateral sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear weapons program.

But under Trump, a lot remains unprecedented, especially when punitive measures are directed at U.S. allies. And this makes it really confusing to know how much leverage Congress even has, and who’s actually steering the ship when it comes to making these big economic decisions.

To find out more we turned back to Ted Alden, the CFR trade expert you heard in our first episode. 

Edward ALDEN: I mean, it’s quite interesting. Trump wrote in a book 25 years ago now, that if he was ever elected, he was going to name himself as his own U.S. trade representative. The USTR is the official who’s supposed to be responsible for things like putting tariffs in place. Trump said, “I’ll be my own USTR.” He said, “I’ve looked at it, my lawyers have looked at it, and I can do that.” Well, that’s effectively what he’s done. He’s in his first 30 days or whatever in office, he basically remade American trade rules.

SIERRA: But he didn’t actually literally take the job, right. There is a U.S. trade rep right. What’s his deal?

ALDEN: So Jamieson Greer, who’s the new trade representative, was a protege of Robert Lighthizer, who was Trump’s first term USTR. Bob Lighthizer himself was a big departure. All of the trade representatives going back a long time, basically believed in the WTO, believed in NAFTA, believed in the rules-based system. It’s not that they didn’t have conflicts with other countries, they certainly did, but by and large, they believed in the system. Lighthizer from day one hated the idea of the WTO. He was very much in line with Trump in thinking the United States was being screwed by these arrangements. 

https://youtu.be/XqsRUM-pRa8?si=vpM6kCBjSnyOpcuA&t=7 

Robert LIGHTHIZER: There is nothing conservative about free trade. What exactly are these people conserving?…No country ever became great by consuming. They became great by producing. 

ALDEN: But he’s also a trade professional, he’s worked his whole life as a trade lawyer, and everything he did in the first term was by the book. He was much more aggressive than previous U.S. trade representatives had been. Everybody, me included, I wrote as much, thought he was coming back in this term, probably as Commerce Secretary, maybe as Treasury Secretary. Trump didn’t invite him back. And the only little bit of reporting we got on it is that Trump didn’t think he was tough enough, didn’t think he was willing to do the things they were called for. So even though Lighthizer was by far the most aggressive U.S. trade representative of the last 75 years, Trump didn’t think he was tough enough and left him on the side. So Jamieson Greer worked for Trump in the first term, but you have to think he’s basically there to carry out the wishes of the President. That will be his role.

Takeaway 3: When it comes to the future of U.S. trade and consensus in Washington, Trump has set himself up to call all the shots.

With a rookie as the new U.S. trade representative and a mix of trade hawks and old-school Republicans in senior economic positions, Trump has the unwavering support, and leverage, to be more unpredictable than his first term in office. He’s hitting our allies Mexico and Canada with tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles and has planned reciprocal tariffs on dozens of other nations including China. But the end goal of these actions…still remains unclear.

SIERRA: Okay so Trump doesn’t think his former Trade Rep was tough enough and brought in a new guy but is also simultaneously sort of doing it all himself. What does he ultimately want this term?

ALDEN: What does he want? I mean, he’ll tell you that he thinks the United States has been taken advantage of, that other countries have gotten the better of this rules-based system that was built by his predecessors, and he’s going to turn it on his head. And he has one big piece of leverage, he actually probably has more. But the biggest piece of leverage he has is the U.S.’s huge market. And every country in the world wants to sell to us because we’re a rich country and we buy lots of stuff. So by threatening to cut that off, by threatening to say, “I’m going to put a 25 or a 50 or 100 percent tax on your exports, you’re going to have a really hard time selling in the United States.” That gives him huge leverage. The question is, what does he want to use it for? And we don’t exactly know yet. I mean, he talks about other countries may be lowering their tariffs. Here in North America, he’s using it to try to deal with drug smuggling across the border and illegal migration. From there, it gets even more confusing. He’s talked a lot about revenue.

Fun fact, the first form of revenue the U.S. ever had was a tariff. In 1789, the Hamilton Tariff put a 5 percent tax on imported goods to offset a young America’s trade imbalance with England.

ALDEN: The tariff was an important source of revenue for American governments after the revolution into the 19th century. Hasn’t been for more than a century. He’s talking about raising revenue from these tariffs that maybe offset the tax cuts he wants to do. So that’s in there somewhere as well. And there’s something of a national security dimension. Here, he’s kind of consistent with President Biden and even going back to President Obama, that there’s certain things, particularly we don’t want to sell to the Chinese, trade with the Chinese because we see them as a strategic adversary, and we’re worried about that dimension. So some combination of those three things. But your listeners all know the way our current president operates. He says a whole bunch of stuff, and then all of us sit here on the podcast trying to make sense of it. And it’s not clear to me that he has a thought through strategy. He’s got a lot of impulses that go in a lot of different directions, and we’re going to have to see where it all lands.

SIERRA: If President Trump is sort of deciding and leading all things trade, what role does that leave for congress?

O’NEIL: I would go back to history, and you don’t have to go back to far history, you just go back to the history of 2019 and 2020 when the previous Trump administration renegotiated the USMCA, so the relationship with Canada and Mexico. And what we saw there is this was a Trump-led initiative. He had very strong feelings about the previous agreement, NAFTA, and wanted a change. So he and his administration negotiated, but then Congress got involved. And that was an example when a bipartisan group, and dare I say, consensus, came together to pass a new free trade agreement with the United States’ two neighbors. And here, Congress plays an important role, one, because they, in the Constitution, have the power of the purse. They have the power over tariffs and free trade agreements. They have to sign on for these things, so that’s important. But two is Congress is made up of members from all over the United States. And particularly with Mexico and Canada, these two countries, lots of districts, many states have really deep trading relationships with these two countries. In fact, the majority of states have really deep relationships. So it’s members of Congress and senators who see in their districts the big exporters. They see the factories, they see the service providers, they see the logistics companies, they see the truck drivers, they see the people who benefit from trade with our neighbors and trade more broadly. So what are the role here? What’s the solution? I think the solution here is actually to get Congress involved because they’ll hear from their constituencies, from their business leaders, from their workers in their states, in their districts, in their cities, in their towns, what they need and where they see the ability to be profitable and to grow. And for many of them, it’s going to be international trade.

SIERRA: Ultimately, your solutions of course make sense – it’s just logical. Provide a social safety net at home through reform by helping people who lost their jobs find new ones, lowering the barrier for selling abroad, and looping in Congress as representatives of the people. All things that make sense. But we also know that in our current political climate things, even if they make sense, do not always come true. They are very polarized. So how do we get leaders to take this advice? 

O’NEIL: This has always been a really hard issue here in the United States is putting this forward, and we have a system that is very different. We have seen advances. Under the Obama administration, we did see some advances in healthcare for those people who didn’t have healthcare with their jobs or didn’t have a job. So we can get there in different places. And we see examples of healthcare in other countries where they’re able to do this. So is it hard to do? Of course it’s hard to do. Lots of things are really hard to do. But if we want to get past a place where America first means closing off America to the rest of the world, which will be costly for lots of those people that we’re worried about, who are worried about their jobs, these are some of the elements that we’re going to have to deal with.

In order to come to new consensus, we have to involve the people that these policies directly affect. And how do that? Well, we ask them of course. That’s why next time on Why It Matters, we’re talking to local business owners and manufacturers around the country and diving into tariffs with CFR’s senior fellow Matt Goodman.

Matt GOODMAN: There’s a lot of uncertainty that’s been created here that is making it hard for business owners all across the country. If you can’t know whether these tariffs are going to stay in place or not, it’s very hard to make business plans that you can confidently rely on. So, whether it’s American importers and consumers who are paying these higher prices or not able to enjoy the benefits of those products from abroad, or U.S. business owners who may suffer under those tariffs and now has this uncertainty about what’s coming next.

Who pays in a trade war? And how are Americans reacting to Trump’s tariffs? More on that in two weeks.

For resources used in this episode and more information, visit CFR.org/whyitmatters and take a look at the show notes. If you ever have any questions or suggestions or just want to chat with us, seriously, email at [email protected] or you can hit us up on X at @CFR_org.

Why It Matters is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed on the show are solely that of the guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

This episode was produced by Molly McAnany, and me, Gabrielle Sierra. Our sound designer is Markus Zakaria. Our interns this semester are Isabella Hussar and Jo Strogatz. Robert McMahon is our Managing Editor. Our theme music is composed by Ceiri Torjussen.

For Why It Matters this is Gabrielle Sierra signing off. See you soon!

‘Banger’ Movie Ending Explained & Summary: What Happens To Scorpex?

Netflix’s Banger is a comedy thriller film centered around a has-been DJ, Scorpex, whose mundane life took a drastic turn when he was approached by the National Intelligence specializing in drug trafficking. While people barely recognized Scorpex, he took pride in his past glory. He was envious of Vestax, a young, popular DJ he felt lacked originality. Scorpex had not produced music for a long while, and the public had pretty much erased him from their memories. Scorpex had made peace with the fact that his glory days were over, and playing a brief set before Vestax got on stage was the only gig he would get. One day at a record store, Scorpex crossed paths with a woman who completely changed his life. 

Spoiler Alert

Why was Scorpex hired by the National Intelligence?

Scorpex came across an enthusiastic fan at the record store who later turned out to be a secret agent named Rose. She wanted Scorpex to work for them because she believed he had an incentive to serve their purpose. According to Rose, Vestax owed his popularity to a criminal gang; they financed everything for him, from his music videos to his PR and even his music lyrics. Scorpex was not surprised; he expected no better from the talentless youngster. But Vestax was not the man the National Intelligence was after. They wanted Scorpex to hang out with Vestax and gather intel to help the national intelligence expose the criminal organization he worked for. Vestax was close to Molotov, the second most important person in the gang, and that was why Rose believed that Vestax also had a connection with the leader, Dricus Mascarilla. The National Intelligence had lost track of him after he underwent  facial reconstruction surgery post a poisoning attempt that left him with scars all over his face and body. Dricus was investing in a backup plan with his new identity. According to the information they had, he’d put money into legal businesses, particularly fashion, and they were convinced that he had a stake in the brand, Van Straat. Since Vestax idolized Scorpex, Rose was convinced that he would not struggle to befriend the gangsters. Rose wanted Scorpex to be Vestax’s new best friend and help her team apprehend Dricus Mascarilla. Such an unbelievable life twist was not something Scorpex had predicted, but the possibility of helping the authorities nab a criminal by just being himself felt like quite an honor to him. Bonding with the incompetent DJ did not come naturally to Scorpex, but he had a job to do, and he was ready to fake his way through. Also, the success of the plan guarantee the fall of Vestax, and that was something Scorpex looked forward to.

Why was Toni disappointed in her father?

Scorpex’s daughter, Toni, had moved in with him to spend some time together. While he was glad to have her by his side, he also struggled to keep the truth from her. There were days when he wanted to discuss the secret mission he was on, but he had to control himself. Toni was a jack of all trades, and she was trying to figure out if she could master one. She had inherited her father’s love for music and had been working on her own track. The more Scorpex got involved with the gang, the more he feared for the safety of his daughter. After he mistook a gang member for Dricus, the gangsters became extremely suspicious of the people they were dealing with. Scorpex had convinced Toni to spend 24×7 at his studio so that she could complete the track she was working on, also hoping to keep her away from the gangsters in the process. But unfortunately, Molotov had tracked Scorpex’s studio and found Toni there. As soon as Scorpex realized that Toni was not safe with him, he requested her to leave. Toni had hoped that one day she and her father would create music together, and perhaps Scorpex too wanted to do the same, but he had too much on his plate, and it resulted in a misunderstanding between the father and daughter. Scorpex and Vestax had to compose a track for the Van Straat fashion show, but Molotov rejected every option they came up with. Scorpex had to offer up something completely new, and he turned to the track Toni created. 

Was Scorpex Successful In Executing The Mission?

This was Scorpex’s only chance to redeem himself, and he was hellbent on making it work. When Vestax mentioned that the big boss would risk his life to attend the Van Straat show, Scorpex knew he had to come up with a banger track. When all options failed, he decided to ignore Vestax and directly approach the designer behind the brand, Tabitha. Since the brand was clearly very dear to Dricus, Scorpex thought that the only way to make sure that his track got approved was by incorporating Tabitha’s vocals. He requested Tabitha to come along with him to his studio and just record the thoughts and ideas that she believed the brand stood for. Tabitha refused to record unless Scorpex provided a background track. As luck would have it, Tabitha loved the track that Toni had created. Even though Scorpex knew that using his daughter’s music without her permission was unfair, he didn’t have a choice. The recording went smoothly, and the track was selected for the ramp walk. Vestax, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut as the sound designer, and Scorpex finally got the opportunity to soak in the fame. He had informed Rose that the boss would attend the show, and she had her team ready to track him down. The show was significant for Scorpex because it was his chance to reclaim the title of the best DJ in town, and also help the secret intelligence nab a notorious criminal.

Tabitha’s support system and an important member behind the brand, Capitani, thanked Scorpex for coming up with a brilliant track at the very last minute. He was in charge of the execution of the show, and he’d arranged a glamorous DJ booth for Scorpex. He guided Scorpex to the backstage, where the models were getting dressed for the event. Tabitha wanted everyone to sport Van Straat clothing, and Scorpex too was handed the clothes she’d selected for him. 

During Banger’s ending, when Scorpex entered the changing room, he noticed Capitani in the adjacent room removing his shirt, and that was when Scorpex realized that he’d been interacting with the big boss all along. As it turned out, Capitani was Dricus, and while he’d changed his face, his body scars confirmed that he was the same man. Rose had arranged for an earpiece that Scorpex could use to connect with her. He used it to inform her that Dricus was Capitani before the show began. To make matters worse, Scorpex discovered that his daughter was one of the models on the show. He was about to use her music without her permission, and he felt extremely guilty about it. Scorpex apologized to his daughter even though she didn’t know why yet. When the show began, Toni figured out what her father was talking about, and she didn’t know how to react. She kept a straight face while walking the ramp.

In Banger’s ending, a cat-and-mouse chase ensued. Dricus figured something was up when his men stormed the backstage. He tried to escape, and he stabbed whoever came in his way. Meanwhile, Scorpex was trying to explain himself to his daughter when he noticed Dricus walking in their direction with a dagger in his hand. He threw himself on the floor to protect Toni, and in the process, Dricus tripped and fell. Rose and the team handcuffed Dricus; the plan was a success, all thanks to the DJ. Toni embraced her father; she finally realized everything he’d told her was the truth, and that he would risk his life to protect her. She needed that reassurance, and she was glad that even though it was not the kind of collaboration she’d hoped for, unknowingly she and her father had created quite an impressive track. The final scene suggests that Scorpex chose spending time with his daughter over fame. Rose called him to inform him that she was about to start the debrief, and she hoped that he would attend the meeting. But Scorpex was a free spirit; he’d helped the National Intelligence, and he would perhaps continue supporting them in any way he could, but he didn’t care about recognition. He was already in another country with his daughter, playing music for a group of strangers. This had always been the life he’d envisioned, and he was glad that he could share it with Toni. Also, did Rose and Scorpex grow romantically fond of each other? Possibly so!

Related